Sarshik v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 17, 1944.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1944-05-17

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The courts have no function to superintend the treatment of prisoners in the penitentiary, but only to deliver from prison those who are illegally detained there.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hall v. Heer

Relies on Platek v. Aderhold

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1944-05-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2000

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Herman L. Sarshik, in pro. per.

¶2M. Neil Andrews, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

¶3Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and LEE,. Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5 The complaint made is that petitioner is ill, and so treated as to aggravate his illness, and especially by preventing his endeavors to help himself in the courts by legal process. On the hearing it appeared that appellant had never been disciplined and was allowed to carry on a considerable correspondence with lawyers, and that there had been no interference with his seeking this writ of habeas corpus. The courts have no function to superintend the treatment of prisoners in the penitentiary, but only to deliver from prison those who are illegally detained there. Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173. The judgment discharging the writ is affirmed.