Home/Supreme Court/Ex parte Botwinski

Ex parte Botwinski

314 U.S. 586, 62 S. Ct. 476
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 5, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 314 U.S. 586 (Ex parte Botwinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Botwinski, 314 U.S. 586, 62 S. Ct. 476 (1942).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It does not appear that petitioner has exhausted his state remedies by applying for a writ of error coram nobis. State ex rel. Dowd v. Superior Court of La Porte County, 36 N. E. 2d 765; State ex rel. Kunkel v. Circuit Court of La Porte County, 209 Ind. 682, 200 N. E. 614. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied without prejudice. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.

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

Related

United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Noia, Relator-Appellant v. Edwin M. Fay, as Warden of Greenhaven Prison, State of New York
300 F.2d 345 (Second Circuit, 1962)
Curran v. Wooley
101 A.2d 303 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1953)
Darr v. Burford
339 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Ex parte Abernathy
320 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Hawk v. Olson
130 F.2d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
Jones v. Dowd
128 F.2d 331 (Seventh Circuit, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 U.S. 586, 62 S. Ct. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-botwinski-scotus-1942.