Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

317 U.S. 238

Sharpe v. Buchanan

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 14, 1942.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1942-12-14

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(i)t thus appears that this obstacle to a consideration of the merits of petitioner's application, which the circuit court of appeals encountered, has now been removed.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Thomas v. Teets, Joseph S. Salama v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Relies on Sharpe v. Commonwealth · Sharpe v. Commonwealth · Sharpe v. Buchanan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Vacated and remanded · 8–0 · Decided 1942-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Osborn v. Shillinger (1988), Schwartzmiller v. Gardner (1984)

50 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

24019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Howard M. Sharpe, pro se.

¶2Per Curiam.

¶3The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the petition for certiorari is also granted. It appears from the record that, after hearing, the District Court dénied an application for habeas corpus filed by petitioner, who is confined in a state penitentiary pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a state court. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order, 121 F. 2d 448, on the sole ground that petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies by applying to the state courts for habeas corpus, although an application for a writ of error coram nobis had previously been denied by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 284 Ky. 88, 143 S. W. 2d 857. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing, when it appeared that an application for habeas corpus, filed in a state court after the Circuit Court of Appeals had rendered its judgment, was still pending on appeal in the *239Kentucky Court of Appeals. After the petition for certiorari was filed here, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the state court’s order denying habeas corpus. Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 86, 165 S. W. 2d 993. It thus appears that this obstacle to a consideration of the merits of petitioner’s application, which the Circuit Court of Appeals encountered, has now been removed. The judgment is therefore vacated, without costs, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate.

¶4So ordered.

/317/us/238 · .json · Public domain