Legal Opinion
Garlotte v. Fordice
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 30, 1995No. 94-6790PublishedCited by 201 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Ginsburg
To petition a federal court for habeas corpus relief from a state-court conviction, the applicant must be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a); see also 28 U. S. C. § 2241(c)(3). In Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968), we held that the governing federal prescription permits prisoners incarcerated under consecutive state-court sentences to apply for federal habeas relief from sentences they had not yet begun to serve. We said in Peyton that, for purposes of habeas relief, consecutive sentences should be treated as a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Maleng v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Peyton v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- McNally v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Anthony Fawcett v. Stephen E. BablitchCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Wayne Fox v. Ira KelsoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by201 opinions
- Rumsfeld v. PadillaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Robert Defoy v. John M. McCullough Superintendent: Gerald J. Pappert, Att. General: Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ParoleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Fleming v. EvansCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- Walker v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- Virsnieks v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
196 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.