Chadwick v. Attorney General of Texas

Fifth Circuit

Chadwick v. Attorney General of Texas

170 F.2d 972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1948

DocketNo. 12473

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F.2d 972 (Chadwick v. Attorney General of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chadwick v. Attorney General of Texas, 170 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint, from the dismissal of which this appeal was taken, was a suit against the Attorney General for the State of Texas, “counsel for the State of Texas,” and the United States Attorney at Austin, “counsel for the United States,” for a declaratory judgment that a detainer or holder for a parole violation warrant “placed against petitioner at the sheriff’s office at Leavenworth, Kansas,” is wholly illegal and void, and that the State of Texas cannot take petitioner into custody as a parole violator.

The district judge, upon full consideration and assistance of counsel for both sides, was of the opinion that the complaint did not state a matter within the jurisdiction of the court, and dismissed the action.

We think it quite clear that nó case for declaratory judgment was made out. The judgment was right and it should be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The complaint, from the dismissal of which this appeal was taken, was a suit against the Attorney General for the State of Texas, “counsel for the State of Texas,” and the United States Attorney at Austin, “counsel for the United States,” for a declaratory judgment that a detainer or holder for a parole violation warrant “placed against petitioner at the sheriff’s office at Leavenworth, Kansas,” is wholly illegal and void, and that the State of Texas cannot take petitioner into custody as a parole violator.

The district judge, upon full consideration and assistance of counsel for both sides, was of the opinion that the complaint did not state a matter within the jurisdiction of the court, and dismissed the action.

We think it quite clear that nó case for declaratory judgment was made out. The judgment was right and it should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F.2d 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-attorney-general-of-texas-ca5-1948.