Legal Opinion
Ex parte Botwinski
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 5, 1942PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
It does not appear that petitioner has exhausted his state remedies by applying for a writ of error coram nobis. State ex rel. Dowd v. Superior Court of La Porte County, 36 N. E. 2d 765; State ex rel. Kunkel v. Circuit Court of La Porte County, 209 Ind. 682, 200 N. E. 614. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied without prejudice. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- State Ex Rel. Kunkel v. Laporte Circuit CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1936
- State Ex Rel. Dowd v. Superior Ct. of Laporte Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1941
3Cited by10 opinions
- Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Ex parte AbernathySupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Noia, Relator-Appellant v. Edwin M. Fay, as Warden of Greenhaven Prison, State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Hawk v. OlsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Jones v. DowdCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.