Legal Opinion

In Re Hayes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1931PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConnor, J.

The petitioner, Dr. R. B. Hayes, was correctly advised by his counsel that no appeal would lie from the judgment at the hearing on the return of the writ of habeas corpus. The only remedy available to the petitioner for a review by this Court of the judgment, in order to determine its validity, was a petition for a writ of certiorari, which in proper cases is a substitute for an appeal. C. S., 630. S. v. Edwards, 192 N. C., 321, 135 S. E., 37; In re McCade, 183 N. C., 242, 111 S. E., 3; In re Croom, 175 N. C., 455, 95 S. E., 903; In re Holley, 154 N. C., 163, 69 S. E., 872. The petition for a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ex Parte McCownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. In Re HolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  3. State v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. In Re CroomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. Snow v. . HawkesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. South Carolina v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Floyd v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  4. In Re WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Heavner v. Town of LincolntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API