Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James E. Edwards, Warden of the State Prison, Appellant, v. Charles Rhea, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 238 F.2d 850
November 2, 1956
Nat Tipton, Advocate General of Tenn., Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Frank S. King, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the Warden of the Tennessee State Prison from a judgment of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee which granted the appellee a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his release from custody.
The court held that the appellee had exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of Tennessee, and that under the circumstances disclosed by the record, his failure to seek a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court did not preclude his right to apply to the federal district court for habeas corpus relief. The court further held that the statute under authority of which the appellee was confined, the Tennessee Habitual Criminal Act, as originally enacted, Williams' Code Tenn. § 11863.1 et seq., was offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in permitting a defendant to be required to answer the charge of being an habitual criminal without actual notice in advance of trial.
The opinion of Judge Davies in which these conclusions are reached is reasoned with clarity and thoroughness. It is published in D.C., 136 F.Supp. 671. For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.