Jones v. Cunningham
Citations
- 371 U.S. 236
- 83 S. Ct. 373
- 9 L. Ed. 2d 285
- 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2261
- 92 A.L.R. 2d 675
About this case
Jones v. Cunningham
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.[1] Prior to this, starting with _Pervear v. Massachusetts _, 72 U.S. 475 (1866),[2] the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.[3] Subsequently, in _Cooper v. Pate _ (1964),[4] an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
**Jones v. Cunningham **
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Cunningham&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: References")
- ↑ Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963).
- ↑ _Pervear v. Massachusetts _, 72 U.S. 475 (1866).
- ↑ "Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights" . U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved December 10, 2007.
- ↑ _Cooper v. Pate _, 378 U.S. 546 (1964).
Further reading
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Cunningham&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Further reading")
- Gertmenian, Alfred (1963). "Criminal Procedure: The Custody Requirement for Habeas Corpus Relief in the Federal Courts". _California Law Review _. 51 (1): 228–232. doi :10.2307/3478912 . JSTOR 3478912 .
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Cunningham&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Cunningham&oldid=1351342132 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that 7 habeas is not “a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has 8 grown to achieve its grand purpose”
- emphasizing that the petitioner was “confined by the 8 parole order to a particular community, house, and job at the sufferance of his parole officer”
- Habeas is not “a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose”
- for purposes of applying habeas corpus custody construed as “restraints on a man's liberty, restraints not shared by the public generally’'
- “[Habeas corpus] never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose.”
- a paroled habeas petitioner is still “in custody” for purposes of the habeas corpus 13 statutes
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Black
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.