Legal Opinion

Tacoma v. Hiatt, Warden

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided October 20, 1950No. 13190_1PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Alleging that he had applied for relief by motion as provided for in Sec. 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. that this motion had been denied, but that the proceeding, within the meaning of that section, was “inadequate [and] ineffective to test the legality of his detention”, appellant, by .petition for habeas corpus, sought release from confinement.

The district judge entertained the petition, and upon full hearing denied it, and this appeal followed.

We have carefully examined the record made below and are in no doubt that petitioner did not show himself entitled to release on habeas corpus. This is so…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Willard C. Beach Air Brush Co. v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jones v. SquierCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
  2. William A. Neigut v. Joseph O. Kearney, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  3. Willard C. Beach Air Brush Co. v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  4. Neigut v. KearneyDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 1954
  5. Davis v. KearneyDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 1956

1 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