Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

429 U.S. 1080

Dixon v. Thompson

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 18, 1977

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1977-02-18

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Abernathy Dayton Hansen Kesling Burall Gobin Donnelly Maurice Goldsmith Davis Hutto Friters Doza Hughes Miller Curiam

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-02-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2010 · most notably 109 Md. App. 1 - Wagner v. Wagner (1996), 44 Cal. 3d 839 - Russ Building Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco (1988)

10 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 14 states

29019771980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Dixon has filed a motion, addressed to Mr. Justice Stewart as Circuit Justice, and by him referred to the Court, for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241 (b) and 1651 (a), and this Court’s Rules 31 and 50. On January 27, 1977, the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Dixon’s habeas corpus petition. Dixon has not appealed from that denial, but the record feveals that the time for appeal has not expired.

¶2This Court does not, absent exceptional circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus when aii adequate remedy may be had in a lower federal court. Ex parte Abernathy, 320 U. S. 219 (1943); Ex parte Tracy, 249 *1081U. S. 551 (1919), Since an appeal from the judgment of the District Court may still be had and since there appear to be no exceptional circumstances justifying exercise of this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction, the motion is denied. Denial of the motion is not an adjudication on the merits, and is made without prejudice to alternative or subsequent applications for relief. Ex parte Abernathy, supra; Ex parte Tracy, supra.

/429/us/1080 · .json · Public domain