Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Ex parte Leslie Williams et al., 1943 — 317 U.S. 604 · caselaw · US
General
Ex parte Leslie Williams et al.
317 U.S. 604·Supreme Court of the United States·1943
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. —, Original.
Ex parte Leslie Williams et al.
January 4, 1943.
Leslie Williams and Joe Bennett, pro se.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
It does not appear that petitioners have exhausted their remedies under state law, especially in view of their failure to file an original application for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Nebraska as is permissible under state law (Nebraska Compiled Statutes, 1929, § 27-204; In re White, 33 Neb. 812, 814, 51 N. W. 287), nor does it appear that the question presented here has been considered on the merits by the Supreme Court of Nebraska in any prior proceeding. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied without prejudice.