Legal Opinion

Ex parte Whistler

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided September 28, 1945No. 2877PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DUFFY, District Judge.

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus verified August 17, 1945, has been considered by the court in order to determine whether the facts alleged, if proved, would warrant further action. This duty is imposed by law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Ex Parte Cleio Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034; Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 24, 63 S.Ct. 1, 3, 87 L.Ed. 3.

As in the case of another petition for writ filed by petitioner in this court several months ago, the petition now before the court does not…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Walker v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Malinski v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Ex Parte HawkSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Ex Parte HullSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Ex Parte QuirinSupreme Court of the United States · 1942

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Robert W. Phillips v. William R. NashCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
  2. United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. HandyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Coats v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1949
  4. Adams v. HiattDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Pitt v. Pine Valley Golf ClubDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1988

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