Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 U.S. 134

Ex parte Dugan

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1864

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1864-12

On a petition for a certiorari to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to send up the record of their proceedings upon a habeas corpus issued from that court upon the application of the petitioner, it was stated by Mr. J. H. Bradley, counsel of the petitioner, that a copy of the record had been obtained; and he asked this court, upon the admission of the Attorney-G-eneral that the copy was-a correct one, to hear the case without a return from the court below.

Relies on Day v. Gallup

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

No disposition · 8–0 · Decided 1864-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1985 · most notably Henderson v. Kibbe (1977), Cool v. United States (1972)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

801864187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1On a mere petition for a certiorari, the court, according' to its better and more regular practice, will decline to hear -the case on its merits, even -though the counsel for the petitioner produce a copy of the record admitted on the other side-to he a true one. It will wait for a return, in form, from the court below.

¶2On a petition for a certiorari to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to send up the record of their proceedings upon a habeas corpus issued from that court upon the application of the petitioner, it was stated by Mr. J. H. Bradley, counsel of the petitioner, that a copy of the record had been obtained; and he asked this court, upon the admission of the Attorney-G-eneral that the copy was-a correct one, to hear the case without a return from the court below. The Attorney-General, on the other hand, while admitting the copy of .the record produced to be. correct, moved the court, for reasons which he laid, to continue the case.

¶3BY THE COURT.

¶4"We think it the better, as well as the more regular practice, to await the return of the court below before taking any action on the- merits. The certiorari will,' therefore,, be now awarded. Upon the coming in of the return the case will be regularly before us; and the motion for continuance made by the Attorney-General will then be disposed of.

¶5Action accordingly.

/69/us/134 · .json · Public domain