William E. Crank v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden, and the Attorney General of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring the district court to determine the constitutionality of an expired sentence because that sentence was used to enhance petitioner’s current sentence
• “We did not decide in Lowery whether the federal court could invalidate the prior conviction for all purposes or only for the purpose of the particular sentence then being served, an important distinction if the state rendering the original judgment retains an interest in its validity.”
• \That a person happens to be in custody is of course not a sufficient reason to rummage through old judgments in search of ones that may be invalid. To obtain relief under S 2254 the prisoner must show that his current confinement violates the Constitution.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).