Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory

207 F.2d 410, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 8, 1953
Docket6662
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 207 F.2d 410 (Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hurley v. Lindsay, Superintendent of Lorton Reformatory, 207 F.2d 410, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484 (4th Cir. 1953).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a declaratory judgment. Appellant is imprisoned in the Lorton Reformatory under the judgment and sentence of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He complains that orders made and commitments issued in connection with the judgment and sentence are void and asked the court below to so declare. We agree with the District Judge that he was without jurisdiction in the premises. If there was any irregularity in the sentence or orders under which *411 appellant was held, and we do not intimate that there was, appellant’s remedy was a motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not a petition for a declaratory judgment in another court. As was well said by Judge Watkins, speaking for the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit in Clark v. Memolo, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 174 F.2d 978, 981, “It was the primary purpose of the [Declaratory Judgment] act, [28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202] to have a declaration of rights not theretofore determined, and not to determine whether rights theretofore adjudicated have been properly adjudicated.”

Affirmed.

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

Related

Severino v. United States
M.D. Florida, 2022
Sturge v. Diversified Transport Corp.
772 F. Supp. 183 (S.D. New York, 1991)
Mosteller v. Smith
751 F. Supp. 1200 (E.D. Virginia, 1990)
Great American Insurance v. Houston General Insurance
735 F. Supp. 581 (S.D. New York, 1990)
United States v. Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty
786 F.2d 491 (Second Circuit, 1986)
Duran v. Wells
307 So. 2d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Grayson ex rel. Grayson v. Eisenstadt
300 F. Supp. 979 (D. Massachusetts, 1969)
Mowers v. United States Attorney General
297 F. Supp. 535 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Grimm v. Co. Comm'rs of Wash. Co.
250 A.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Clausell v. Turner
295 F. Supp. 533 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Frank Edward Sepulveda v. The State of Colorado
335 F.2d 581 (Tenth Circuit, 1964)
Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County Water & Sewer Board
18 Fla. Supp. 168 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1961)
Frix v. Beck
104 So. 2d 81 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Tuckson v. Clemmer
231 F.2d 658 (Fourth Circuit, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 F.2d 410, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurley-v-lindsay-superintendent-of-lorton-reformatory-ca4-1953.