Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 254 (1886). · Go Syfert
Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 254 (1886). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ex parte Collins (circtndca, 1906-11-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1902 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1902 1964 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex parte Collins
circtndca · 1906 · confidence medium
But it was adjudged that the statute did not imperatively require the Circuit Court by writ of habeas corpus to wrest the petitioner from the custody of the state officers in advance of his trial in the state court; that while the Circuit Court of the United States has the power to do so, and could discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he be restrained of his .liberty in violation of the National Constitution, it is not bound in every case to exercise such power immediately upon application being made for the writ.” In the Royall Case it seems that, in addition to the petition pr…
discussed Cited "see" Bryant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ETC.
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 , 6 S.Ct. 734 , 29 L.Ed. 872 (1886) (imposing exhaustion-of-state-remedies requirement in absence of express statutory authority for doing so).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hutchinson v. Casey
S.D. Ohio · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 253 , 6 S.Ct. 734 , 29 L.Ed. 872 (1886), wherein the court stated that federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent “special circumstances” to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Royall
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 15, 1886.
117 U.S. 254
1886 U.S. LEXIS 1833
Mr. William L. Boyall in person and Mr. Daniel H. Chamberlain for the ’ petitioner. Mr, William B. Ilornblower was with them on the brief.
Harlan.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
[*255] . Me. Justice Haelan

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an original application by "W. L. Rovall, to this court, for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to N. M. Lee, sergeant of the city of Richmond, Yirginia, commanding him to produce the body of the petitioner before this court, together with the cause of his detention, that he may be discharged from' the custody of said 'officer. The writ is asked upon the ground that the statute under which he was arrested and is held in custody is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of that instrument. The petition was filed here on the 1st day of-December, 1884. It states the same facts as are set out in the petition in Ex parte Royall No. 1, and Ex parte Royall No. 2, ante, 241, just determined.

The application for the writ must be denied. It is sufficient to say that if this court has power, under existing legislation, and upon habeas corpus, to discharge the petitioner, who is in custody, under the process of a State court of original jurisdiction, for trial on an indictment charging him with an offence against the laws of that State — upon which it is not necessary to express an opinion — such power ought not, for the reasons given in the other cases just decided, to be exercised in advance of his trial.

Denied.