Collins v. Smith

Ninth Circuit

Collins v. Smith

17 F.2d 988, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 14, 1927·No. No. 4966·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant applied to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from imprisonment under a judgment of one of the courts of the state of California, on the ground that the statute under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional and void. The rule is so well settled that the validity of a state statute cannot be challenged in this way that the question is no longer an open one. Urguhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760; In re Whitacre (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 767, decided February 21, 1927.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant applied to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from imprisonment under a judgment of one of the courts of the state of California, on the ground that the statute under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional and void. The rule is so well settled that the validity of a state statute cannot be challenged in this way that the question is no longer an open one. Urguhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760; In re Whitacre (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 767, decided February 21, 1927.

The order is affirmed.

Collins v. Smith, 17 F.2d 988, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091 (9th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

17 F.2d 988 (Collins v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related