Legal Opinion
Stynchcombe v. Hardy
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided October 7, 1971No. 26646PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Nichols, Justice.
1. The sole question to be decided in the habeas corpus proceeding was whether the confinement of the prisoner was legal at the time of the hearing. See Johnson v . Plunkett, 215 Ga. 353 (5) (110 SE2d 745), and citations; Ballard v. Smith, 225 Ga. 416 (4) (169 SE2d 329); Evans v. Perkins, 225 Ga. 48 (4) (165 SE2d 652). Habeas corpus proceedings cannot be used to test the legality of possible future imprisonment. See Crumley v. Head, 225 Ga. 246 (1) (167 SE2d 651).
In Williamson v. State, 1 Ga. App. 657 (57 SE 1079), it was held: "1. Where a person is arrested on a warrant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Neal v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Ballard v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
- Johnson v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
- Stripland v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Dye v. DyeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. HoustonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- State v. NashCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
- Heard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Watts v. PittsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
- Chafin v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.