28 U.S.C. § 2243

Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The person to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.

When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.

Unless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained.

The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts.

The return and all suggestions made against it may be amended, by leave of court, before or after being filed.

The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3,959 cases (2,104 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Dudley Bryant, Jr. v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dudley Bryant, Jr. v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (2013) ca11 · cites it 17× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 . Our disagreement is over what remedy the law and justice require to correct the identified error here.”

Damous Nettles v. Randy Grounds (2016) ca9 · cites it 4× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 . Consonant with this language, the Supreme Court has rejected “the notion that immediate physical release [is] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.”

Murray v. Carrier (1986) scotus · cites it 6× “" 28 U. S. C. § 2243 . As the statute suggests, the central mission of the Great Writ should be the substance of "justice," not the form of procedures.”

Stone v. Powell (1976) scotus · cites it 4× “' 28 U. S. C. § 2243 ." 372 U. S., at 438. More recently, in Francis v.”

Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973) scotus · cites it 6× “The Court pointed out that the federal habeas corpus statute "does not deny the federal courts power to fashion appropriate relief other than immediate release. Since 1874, the habeas corpus statute has directed the courts to determine the facts and dispose of the case…”

Harris v. Nelson (1969) scotus · cites it 10× “" 28 U. S. C. § 2243 . Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case in order that the District Court may reconsider the matter before it in light of our opinion and judgment.”

Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill. (1978) scotus · cites it 4× “Respondent cites 28 U. S. C. §§ 2243 and 2254 (d) and the Court's decision in Townsend v.”

Withrow v. Williams (1993) scotus · cites it 6× “28 U. S. C. § 2243 (court entertaining habeas petition shall "dispose of the matter as law and justice require").”

Travis Denny v. Paul Schultz (2013) ca3 · cites it 6× “Background The factual record in this appeal was not fully developed because the District Court acted sua sponte in dismissing the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 before the BOP had entered its appearance and before any discovery had taken place.”

Hilton v. Braunskill (1987) scotus · cites it 4× “" We think a resort to the history of habeas practice in the federal courts and the traditional standards governing stays of civil judgments in those courts is helpful in illuminating the generality of these terms of Rules 23(c) and (d). *775 Federal habeas corpus practice, as…”

Smith v. Murray (1986) scotus · cites it 4× “" 28 U. S. C. § 2243 . It is by now equally clear that the application of the Court's "cause and prejudice" formulation as a rigid bar to review of fundamental constitutional violations has no support in the statute, or in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (b)(2), from which…”

Wilkinson v. Dotson (2005) scotus · cites it 2× “The statute reads virtually the same today, 28 U. S. C. § 2243 ("dispose of the matter as law and justice require").”

Show all 3,959 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 2243(b)(1) — 3 cases

Berkley v. Quarterman (2007) txwd

Wood v. Dretke (2005) txwd

Blanton v. Quarterman (2007) txwd

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.