Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 F.2d 988

Docket No. 4966.

Collins v. Smith

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 14, 1927.)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1927-03-14

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1972

2 counsel of record

Relies on Henry Urquhart v. Thomas Brown · Whitacre v. Traeger

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1927-03-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Habeas corpus <@=45(1) — Validity of state statute cannot be challenged in federal courts by habeas corpus.

¶2Validity of state statute under which sentence was imposed cannot be challenged in federal courts by application for writ of habeas corpus.

¶3Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; George M. Bourquin, Judge.

¶4Application for habeas corpus by John L. Collins against J. J. Smith, as Warden of the State Prison at Repress, Cal. From the order, petitioner appeals.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6John L. Collins, in pro. per.

¶7U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶8Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.

¶10PER CURIAM.

¶11The appellant applied to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from imprisonment under a judgment of one of the courts of the state of California, on the ground that the statute under which the sentence was imposed is unconstitutional and void. The rule is so well settled that the validity of a state statute cannot be challenged in this way that the question is no longer an open one. Urguhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760; In re Whitacre (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 767, decided February 21, 1927.

¶12The order is affirmed.

/17/f2d/988 · .json · Public domain