Supreme Court· 2/10/1941
Walker v. Johnston
Citations
- 312 U.S. 275
- 61 S. Ct. 574
- 85 L. Ed. 830
- 1941 U.S. LEXIS 946
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved based on affidavits and must be decided based on evidentiary hearings, “the only admissible procedure” for resolving such issues
- holding that the “only admissible procedure” for habeas corpus applications when an issue of fact is presented is for the court to “issue the writ, have the petitioner produced, and hold a hearing at which evidence is received”
- a habeas case in which the Supreme Court required petitioner to bear \the burden of sustaining his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence\
- “On a hearing [the § 2241 petitioner has] the burden of sustaining his allegations by a preponderance of evidence.”
- habeas petitioner has the \burden of sustaining his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence\
- petitioner has the burden of “sustaining his allegations by a preponderance of evidence” on collateral review
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
470 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1970-05-04· cited 7,191×
- Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1971-12-20· cited 5,257×
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 4,485×
- Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 3,950×
- Blackledge v. AllisonSupreme Court· 1977-05-02· cited 3,882×
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court· 1978-02-21· cited 3,383×
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of KentuckySupreme Court· 1973-02-28· cited 2,787×
- Brown v. AllenSupreme Court· 1953-02-09· cited 2,465×
- Hill v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-02-26· cited 2,416×
- Von Moltke v. GilliesSupreme Court· 1948-01-19· cited 1,645×
- MacHibroda v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-02-19· cited 1,618×
- Hamdi v. RumsfeldSupreme Court· 2004-06-28· cited 1,441×
- United States v. MorganSupreme Court· 1954-02-08· cited 1,436×
- Price v. JohnstonSupreme Court· 1948-05-24· cited 1,320×
- Keeney v. Tamayo-ReyesSupreme Court· 1992-05-04· cited 1,094×
- United States v. TimmreckSupreme Court· 1979-05-21· cited 1,059×
- United States v. HaymanSupreme Court· 1952-01-07· cited 1,034×
- Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court· 1950-04-03· cited 969×
- Burns v. WilsonSupreme Court· 1953-06-15· cited 669×
- Ladner v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1958-12-15· cited 631×
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court· 1938-05-31· cited 10,545×
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court· 1935-01-21· cited 1,837×
- Ex Parte YarbroughSupreme Court· 1884-03-03· cited 548×
- Sanders v. AllenD.C. Circuit· 1938-11-21· cited 68×
- Clawans v. RivesD.C. Circuit· 1939-03-20· cited 49×
- Zahn v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1939-03-23· cited 34×
- Cundiff v. NicholsonFourth Circuit· 1939-11-06· cited 20×
- Murdock v. PollockEighth Circuit· 1915-12-03· cited 18×
- Mothershead v. KingEighth Circuit· 1940-06-29· cited 17×
- Taylor v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1940-07-10· cited 16×
- Walker v. ChittyNinth Circuit· 1940-05-13· cited 15×
- Harpin v. JohnstonNinth Circuit· 1940-02-06· cited 13×
- Franzeen v. JohnstonNinth Circuit· 1940-05-09· cited 13×
- Nivens v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1939-07-17· cited 13×
- McCoy v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1939-10-13· cited 11×
- Moore v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1940-03-12· cited 9×
- Walker v. JohnstonNinth Circuit· 1940-02-06· cited 8×
- United States Ex Rel. Nortner v. HiattM.D. Pennsylvania· 1940-06-18· cited 6×
- McDonald v. HudspethTenth Circuit· 1940-01-04· cited 6×
- Hurt v. ZerbstFifth Circuit· 1938-06-11· cited 1×
Other cases named Walker v. Johnston
4 other CourtListener records share this case 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.