Legal Opinion

Ex parte Abernathy

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 18, 1943PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Per curiam

The applications are severally denied.

In these cases petitioners invoke the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by 28 U. S. C. §§ 377, *220451, to issue writs of habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Cf. Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 582-3. That jurisdiction is discretionary, id. 584; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 27, and this Court does not, save in exceptional circumstances, exercise it in cases where an adequate remedy may be had in a lower federal court, Ex parte Current, 314 U. S. 578; Ex parte Spaulding, 317 U. S. 593; Ex parte Hawk, 318 U. S. 746, or,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Bowen v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Ex Parte Republic of PeruSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Ex Parte Elmer DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Ex parte BotwinskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1942

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Brown v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  2. Darr v. BurfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Ex Parte HawkSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. House v. MayoSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. United States of America Ex Rel. Anthony Scoleri v. William J. Banmiller, Warden, Eastern State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962

28 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