Legal Opinion

Currier v. Holden

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided September 17, 1993No. 920467-CA, 930123-CAPublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Petitioners Stephen Currier and Carl McClellan seek to have this court reverse the respective dismissals of their petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that the statute of limitations barring these petitions is unconstitutional.2 We conclude that the limitation period in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-31.1 (1992) is an unreasonable limitation on the constitutional right to petition for a habeas corpus writ that violates petitioners’ rights under Article I, section 11 of the Utah Constitution to seek a civil remedy in state courts. We, therefore, reverse both…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Ingraham v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Price v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Bistline v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
  2. Renn v. Utah State Board of PardonsUtah Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Julian v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Wood v. University of Utah Medical CenterUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  5. James v. GaletkaCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1998

22 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