United States v. Hayman

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, because habeas remained available as a last resort, it was unnecessary to “reach constitutional questions”
• noting that “a proceeding under Section 2255 is an independent and collateral inquiry into the validity of the conviction”
• explaining that § 2255 was enacted as a functional equivalent for habeas corpus to allow federal prisoners to bring a collateral attack in the court that imposed the sentence rather than a court that happened to be near the prison
• explaining that § 2255 was enacted as a functional equivalent for habeas corpus to allow federal prisoners to bring a collateral attack in the court that imposed the sentence rather than a court that happened to be near the prison
• explaining that § 2255 directs post-conviction litigation to the district of conviction to avoid the practical problems that existed before § 2255, when all litigation was brought by a writ of habeas corpus in the district of confinement
• explaining that § 2255 directs post-conviction litigation to the district of conviction to avoid the practical problems that existed before § 2255, when all litigation was brought by a writ of habeas corpus in the district of confinement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).