Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 5/23/1910

Erickson v. Hodges

Citations

  • 179 F. 177
  • 102 C.C.A. 443
  • 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4624

Syllabus

<p>1. Habeas Corpus (§ 62*) — Procedure—Dismissal of Petition.</p> <p>Under Rev. St. § 755 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 593), which provides that on an application to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus the court or judge shall fórthwith award a writ, “unless it appears from the petition itself that the party is not entitled thereto,” where it appears^ from the petition that the case is not one which would justify the exercise of federal authority, it may he dismissed, and the court is not required to either award a writ or issue an order to the respondent to show cause.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 55; Dec. Dig. § 62.*]</p> <p>2. Habeas Corpus (§45*) — Hearing in Federal Court — Matters Concluded by Determination of State Court.</p> <p>In a criminal prosecution in a state court, where the statute creating the offense is not repugnant to the federal Constitution, and the court has jurisdiction, its determination with respect to the sufficiency of the charge is controlling in the federal courts on an application by the accused for a writ of habeas corpus after conviction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 38^t5; Dec. Dig. § 45;* Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1376-1385.]</p> <p>Jurisdiction of federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings, see note to In re Huse, 25 C. O. A. 4.]</p> <p>3. Habeas Corpus (§45*) — Hearing in Federal Court — Matters Concluded by Determination of State Court.</p> <p>The determination by the highest court of a state that the offense charged in an indictment is one punishable under the laws of the state is conclusive in a subsequent proceeding by the accused in a federal court for release on a writ of habeas co.rpus.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 38-4»; Dec. Dig. § 45;* Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1376-1385.]</p> <p>4. Statutes (§§ 118, 138*) — Formal Requisites — Constitutional Provisions.</p> <p>Daws Wash. 1891, c. 28, § 1 (Ballinger’s

Judges: Wolverton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.