Jones v. Cunningham
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jones v. Cunningham | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argued December 3, 1962 Decided January 14, 1963 |
|||||
Full case name | Jones v. Cunningham | ||||
Citations | 371 U.S. 236 (more) | ||||
Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | ||||
Holding | |||||
A state prisoner who has been placed on parole, under the "custody and control" of a parole board, is "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and, on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution. | |||||
Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
Case opinions | |||||
Majority | Black, joined by unanimous | ||||
Laws applied | |||||
28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus) | |||||
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|||||
Pervear v. Massachusetts (1867) |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866), the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.[1] Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964), an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
Further reading
- Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
External links
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>