Sharpe v. Buchanan

317 U.S. 238, 63 S. Ct. 245, 87 L. Ed. 238, 1942 U.S. LEXIS 13
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 11, 1943
Docket525
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 317 U.S. 238 (Sharpe v. Buchanan) 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
Sharpe v. Buchanan, 317 U.S. 238, 63 S. Ct. 245, 87 L. Ed. 238, 1942 U.S. LEXIS 13 (1943).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the petition for certiorari is also granted. It appears from the record that, after hearing, the District Court dénied an application for habeas corpus filed by petitioner, who is confined in a state penitentiary pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a state court. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order, 121 F. 2d 448, on the sole ground that petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies by applying to the state courts for habeas corpus, although an application for a writ of error coram nobis had previously been denied by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 284 Ky. 88, 143 S. W. 2d 857. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing, when it appeared that an application for habeas corpus, filed in a state court after the Circuit Court of Appeals had rendered its judgment, was still pending on appeal in the *239 Kentucky Court of Appeals. After the petition for certiorari was filed here, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the state court’s order denying habeas corpus. Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 86, 165 S. W. 2d 993. It thus appears that this obstacle to a consideration of the merits of petitioner’s application, which the Circuit Court of Appeals encountered, has now been removed. The judgment is therefore vacated, without costs, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate.

So ordered.

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

Related

Collins Nyabwa v. William Stephens, Director
531 F. App'x 471 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Jackson v. Armstrong
Fifth Circuit, 2002
Willy Carl Lyons v. Theo White, Warden
145 F.3d 1339 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Jerome Weathers v. Daniel R. McBride
61 F.3d 907 (Seventh Circuit, 1995)
Neely v. Hollywood Marine, Inc.
518 So. 2d 1151 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Schwartzmiller v. Gardner
752 F.2d 1341 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
James E. Domaingue v. Fred Butterworth
641 F.2d 8 (First Circuit, 1981)
Bufalino v. Reno
613 F.2d 568 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Joseph S. Salama v. Commonwealth of Virginia
605 F.2d 1329 (Fourth Circuit, 1979)
Thomas v. Teets
205 F.2d 236 (Ninth Circuit, 1953)
United States ex rel. Keener v. Foust
84 F. Supp. 939 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1949)
Downs v. Hudspeth
75 F. Supp. 945 (D. Kansas, 1948)
Willett v. Union Pac. R. Co.
76 F. Supp. 903 (N.D. Ohio, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 U.S. 238, 63 S. Ct. 245, 87 L. Ed. 238, 1942 U.S. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharpe-v-buchanan-scotus-1943.