Gobin v. Hancock

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Gobin v. Hancock

78 A.2d 531, 96 N.H. 450, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 187

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 6, 1951

Docket4004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 A.2d 531 (Gobin v. Hancock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gobin v. Hancock, 78 A.2d 531, 96 N.H. 450, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 187 (N.H. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Lampeón, J.

A person must be imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his personal liberty to be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. R. L., c. 406, s. 1; Van Meter v. Sanford, 99 F. (2d) 511; 39 C. J. S. 428; 25 Am. Jur. 158. Having been granted his release from imprisonment, the right of the petitioner to the relief he seeks is now a moot question. A determination thereof by this court has therefore become unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. In re Halley, 327 Mich. 222; State exrel. Magrum v. Nygaard, 38 N. W. (2d) 370 (1949).

Since this appeal the petitioner has filed three other petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this same matter. One was filed August 3, 1950, another September 12, 1950, and another October 20, 1950. A refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus or a dismissal of one is not res judicata on a subsequent application for such a writ. Sheehy v. Sheehy, 88 N. H. 223, 226. However, “repeated applications for a writ of habeas corpus introducing no new facts material to the issue will ordinarily be summarily disposed of.” Petition of Moebus, 74 N. H. *452 213; U. S. ex rel. McCann v. Thompson, 144 F. (2d) 604, 606, cert. den., 323 U. S. 790; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 231; Ex parte Tidwell, 222 P. (2d) 760 (1950).

Petition dismissed.

Johnston C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Lampeón, J.

A person must be imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his personal liberty to be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. R. L., c. 406, s. 1; Van Meter v. Sanford, 99 F. (2d) 511; 39 C. J. S. 428; 25 Am. Jur. 158. Having been granted his release from imprisonment, the right of the petitioner to the relief he seeks is now a moot question. A determination thereof by this court has therefore become unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. In re Halley, 327 Mich. 222; State exrel. Magrum v. Nygaard, 38 N. W. (2d) 370 (1949).

Since this appeal the petitioner has filed three other petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this same matter. One was filed August 3, 1950, another September 12, 1950, and another October 20, 1950. A refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus or a dismissal of one is not res judicata on a subsequent application for such a writ. Sheehy v. Sheehy, 88 N. H. 223, 226. However, “repeated applications for a writ of habeas corpus introducing no new facts material to the issue will ordinarily be summarily disposed of.” Petition of Moebus, 74 N. H. *452 213; U. S. ex rel. McCann v. Thompson, 144 F. (2d) 604, 606, cert. den., 323 U. S. 790; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 231; Ex parte Tidwell, 222 P. (2d) 760 (1950).

Petition dismissed.

Johnston C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.2d 531, 96 N.H. 450, 1951 N.H. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gobin-v-hancock-nh-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack