Holmes v. Conway
241 U.S. 624 (1916)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Holmes v. Conway, 241 U.S. 624 (1916)

Holmes v. Conway

No. 335

Argued May 1, 1916

Decided June 12, 1916

241 U.S. 624

Syllabus

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control mere forms of procedure in state courts, or regulate practice therein.

All the requirements of the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment are complied with provided the person condemned has sufficient notice and is afforded adequate opportunity to defend.

An attorney having obtained certain funds from the clerk of the court, the court in a summary proceeding directed him, after a full hearing, to restore the same; on appeal, this order was affirmed, and, on rehearing,

Page 241 U. S. 625

the attorney set up that he had been denied due process of law by not being given adequate notice or a fair opportunity to defend. Held that, as the record doe not sustain his contention in those respects, this Court cannot say that he has been deprived of a federal right.

92 Kan. 787, 93 id. 246, affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a judgment of a state court, are stated in the opinion.

Page 241 U. S. 626

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.