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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
Ex parte Betz; Ex parte Durant; Ex parte Wills; Ex parte Cutino; Ex parte Walczak; Ex parte McKinley; and Ex parte Murphy
329 U.S. 672·Supreme Court of the United States·1946
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that, as in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 (see also White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 765) where this Court declined to entertain an application for relief by habeas corpus, the petitions for habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice to their being filed in the appropriate District Court. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 304-306. Mr. Justice Murphy is of the view that these petitions raise questions as to jurisdiction and proper procedure which should be heard and determined by this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the application in No. 19, Miscellaneous.
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. 18,
No. 19,
No. 24,
No. 25,
No. 30,
No. 31,
No. 32,
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Misc.
Ex parte Betz; Ex parte Durant; Ex parte Wills; Ex parte Cutino; Ex parte Walczak; Ex parte McKinley; and Ex parte Murphy.
October 14, 1946.
[MAJORITY]
The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied for want of original jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that, as in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 (see also White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 765) where this Court declined to entertain an application for relief by habeas corpus, the petitions for habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice to their being filed in the appropriate District Court. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 304-306. Mr. Justice Murphy is of the view that these petitions raise questions as to jurisdiction and proper procedure which should be heard and determined by this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the application in No. 19, Miscellaneous.