State v. Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “habeas corpus may be used as a postconviction procedure to inquire into alleged violations of freedoms considered to be basic and fundamental”
• explaining that in a habeas proceeding “the county attorney is not a proper respondent with custody”
• explaining that in a habeas proceeding “the county attorney is not a proper respondent with custody”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Peyton v. Nord
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1968-02-26· cited 71×
• State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2015-02-11· cited 33×
• State Ex Rel. Holm v. Tahash
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1965-12-17· cited 24×
• State Ex Rel. Danielsen v. Tahash
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1966-03-11· cited 6×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gideon v. Wainwright
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
• Townsend v. Sain
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 4,485×
• Fay v. Noia
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 3,950×
• Sanders v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1963-04-29· cited 2,713×
• Jones v. Cunningham
  Supreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 1,503×
• In Re Petersen
  California Supreme Court· 1958-10-31· cited 88×
• State Ex Rel. Naus v. Rigg
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1957-08-02· cited 11×
• State Ex Rel. Bassett v. Tahash
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1962-08-17· cited 8×
• State ex rel. McMonagle v. Konshak
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1917-04-20· cited 3×
• United States v. Dumeur
  S.D. New York· 1963-02-11· cited 3×
• Bowen v. Harris
  W.D. Missouri· 1964-01-13· cited 2×