Ex parte Botwinski
314 U.S. 586, 62 S. Ct. 476
Opinion
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
Ex parte Botwinski, 314 U.S. 586, 62 S. Ct. 476 (1942).
314 U.S. 586 (Ex parte Botwinski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)