Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/362/143/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/362/143/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (1960)
Sublett v. Adams
No. 406, Misc.
Decided March 7, 1960
362 U.S. 143
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
Syllabus
Petitioner applied to a State Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus, charging that his confinement was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Court refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
Held: the facts alleged entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Petitioner charged that he was being held in prison without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
We hold that the facts alleged are such as to entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
