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.
COLLINS v. SMITH, Warden of California State Prison at Repress, 1927 — 17 F.2d 988 · caselaw · US
General
COLLINS v. SMITH, Warden of California State Prison at Repress
17 F.2d 988·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1927
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
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
COLLINS v. SMITH, Warden of California State Prison at Repress.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 14, 1927.)
No. 4966.
Habeas corpus <@=45(1) — Validity of state statute cannot be challenged in federal courts by habeas corpus.
Validity of state statute under which sentence was imposed cannot be challenged in federal courts by application for writ of habeas corpus.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; George M. Bourquin, Judge.
Application for habeas corpus by John L. Collins against J. J. Smith, as Warden of the State Prison at Repress, Cal. From the order, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
John L. Collins, in pro. per.
U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing denied May 2, 1927.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The appellant applied to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from imprisonment under a judgment of one of the courts of the state of California, on the ground that the statute under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional and void. The rule is so well settled that the validity of a state statute cannot be challenged in this way that the question is no longer an open one. Urguhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760; In re Whitacre (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 767, decided February 21, 1927.
The order is affirmed.