False Imprisonment. Arrest by Order of State Court after Discharge in Bankruptcy. Release on Habeas Corpus as Evidence of Unlawful Arrest. Bennett v. Lewis et al., 66 S. W. 525 (Ky.)

1902 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 431
Keyword(s):  
State Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
False Imprisonment

The crumbling citadel: absolute judicial immunity de-rationalised

Legal Studies ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku
Keyword(s):  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
False Imprisonment

A Turk is fined and recommended for deportation by a magistrate for breach of the Aliens Order 1953. The magistrate recommends that he not be detained in custody pending the Home Office’ decision on the recommendation for deportation. The Turk appeals to the Crown Court against the recommendation for his deportation. The judge rules that he has no jurisidiction to hear the appeal and dismisses it. On seeing the erstwhile appellant about to leave the court premises the judge cries ‘stop him’, on which the appellant Turk is arrested by the police and detained in custody. The Divisional Court of the Queens Bench issues an order of habeas corpus for the release of the Turk on the ground that the judge in the Crown Court had been functus officio before be began to consider whether the Turk should be detained or not. The Turk consequently brings an action against the Crown Court judge and the police, claiming damages for assault and false imprisonment. It is decided that the judge is immune from liability because he had acted in his capacity as a judge.

Heeding Congress's Message: The United States Supreme Court Bars Federal Courthouse Doors to Habeas Relief Against All but Irrational State Court Decisions, and Oftentimes Doubly So

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Federal habeas corpus challenges to state criminal convictions grew significantly between 1948 and 1996 when traditional de novo review was coupled with an expanding list of federal constitutional protections the Supreme Court made applicable to the states. The landscape changed dramatically in 1996 when Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Old and new procedural barriers to habeas review were codified. Merits review of state court decisions became highly deferential. In a series of recent decisions discussed in this article, most notably Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), the Court strongly expressed its frustration with the failure of lower courts to heed Congress' mandate. Federal courthouse doors are now closed to all but the rare case where there “is no possibility for fair-minded disagreement” the state court acted unreasonably (not just erroneously) in deciding the merits. Review becomes “doubly deferential” when the claim is one where deference is already owed in state court; most notably, challenges to the effectiveness of counsel and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Deference is owed even when the state court issues a summary merits decision without opinion.

Captain Hodsdon’s Legal Entanglements

2018 ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Eric M. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Army ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
The United States ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Prisoner Of War ◽  
Early National Period ◽  
Early National ◽  
The Subject ◽  
False Imprisonment

Illustrating the numerous legal restraints on power in the early national period, this chapter focuses on Captain Isaac Hodsdon of the United States Army, accused of wrongfully imprisoning men in Stewartstown, New Hampshire during the War of 1812. They first obtained a state writ of habeas corpus. Hodsdon’s response, that he would not produce the men because one was a prisoner of war and the other detained on federal charges was—quite appropriately—found contemptuous. He was prosecuted in private criminal contempt proceedings, and also held liable for damages in a false imprisonment action. Meanwhile the New Hampshire legislature (to whom Hodsdon apparently gave a false account of the events) passed a restoration to law statute, enabling him to overcome a missed deadline. Ultimately the United States Congress (of which his counsel, John Holmes, had become a member) granted him indemnity. These events were the subject of tart newspaper exchanges in the Concord Statesman & Register and the New-Hampshire Patriot.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document