Legal Opinion
Ex Parte Stewart
District Court, S.D. California
Decided October 6, 1942No. 2341-YPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtYankwich, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Our legal system abhors finality. Because it does not assume the correctness of the judgment of any tribunal, it provides means, directly or indirectly, for questioning it. For this reason, I took jurisdiction of this case.
In determining it on the merits, it is well to bear in mind the scope of our review on habeas corpus. The controlling legal provisions are the administrative sections of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 310. Subdivision (a) reads: “The President is authorized * * * to prescribe the necessary rules and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McNally v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Tang Tun v. EdsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Angelus v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- United States v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Arbitman v. WoodsideCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Trainin v. CainCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- United States Ex Rel. Lawrence v. Commanding Officer of McCook Army Air FieldDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1945
- United States ex rel. Signorelli v. MalleckDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1969
- Goodwin v. RoweDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1943
- United States ex rel. Kulick v. KennedyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.