Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

344 U.S. 443

73 S. Ct. 437

Docket Nos. 20, 22, 31 and 32.

Daniels v. Allen

Full caption · 4 consolidated cases

  • Bennie DANIELS and Lloyd Ray Danielsv.Robert A. ALLEN, Warden, Central Prison of the State of North Carolina
  • Raleigh SPELLERv.Robert A. ALLEN, Warden, Central Prison of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
  • Clyde BROWNv.Robert A. ALLEN, Warden, Central Prison of the State of North Carolina. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel
  • James SMITHv.Dr. Frederick S. BALDI, Superintendent of the Philadelphia County Prison

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Feb. 9, 1953.

Supreme Court of the United States

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States Ex Rel. Brown v. Smith

Relies on Brown v. Allen · Darr v. Burford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 6–3 ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Wainwright v. Sykes (1977)

38 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

2101953196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER.

¶1

The course of litigation in these cases and their relevant facts are set out in Mr. Justice REED's opinion. This opinion is restricted to the two general questions which must be considered before the Court can pass on the specific situations presented by these cases. The two general problems are these:

¶2

I. The legal significance of a denial of certiorari, in a case required to be presented here under the doctrine of Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, when an application for a habeas corpus · Case Law">writ of habeas corpus thereafter comes before a district court.*

¶3

II. The bearing that the proceedings in the State courts should have on the disposition of such an application in a district court.

*

Mr. Justice Frankfurter's opinion on this issue expresses the position of the majority, see 344 U.S. 450—453, 73 S.Ct. pp. 404, 405 (Syllabus paragraphs 3—8).

/344/us/443 · .json · Public domain