|
|
Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898)
Tinsley v. Anderson Nos. 632 , 633 Argued May 5, 6, 1898 Decided May 31, 1898 171 U.S. 101
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Syllabus
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court from a state court extends to a final judgment or decree in any suit, civil or criminal, in the highest court of a state where a decision in the suit could be had, against a title, right, privilege or immunity specially set up and claimed under the Constitution or a treaty or statute of the United States.
If the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas, being the highest court of the state having jurisdiction of the case, dismissing the writ of habeas corpus issued by one of its judges and remanding the prisoner to custody denied to him any right specially set up and claimed by him under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, it is reviewable by this Court on writ of error.
The right to equal protection of the laws is not denied by a state court when it is apparent that the same law or course of procedure would be applied to any other person in the state under similar circumstances and conditions.
When the committing court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, and power to make the order for disobedience to which a judgment in contempt is rendered, and to render that judgment, then the appellate court cannot do otherwise than discharge a writ of habeas corpus brought to review that judgment and secure the prisoner’s discharge, as that writ cannot be availed of as a writ of error or appeal.
It was competent for the district court to compel the surrender of the minute book and notes in Tinsley’s possession, and he could not be discharged on habeas corpus until he had performed or offered to perform so much of the order as it was within the power of the district court to impose, even though it may have been in some part invalid.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898) in 171 U.S. 101 171 U.S. 102. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I3Y6XMLNW5VB7XI.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898), in 171 U.S. 101, page 171 U.S. 102. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I3Y6XMLNW5VB7XI.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898). cited in 1898, 171 U.S. 101, pp.171 U.S. 102. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I3Y6XMLNW5VB7XI.
|