An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866), the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964), an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866), the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964), an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 14649174 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 4087 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1042404104 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-12-03 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1962 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Jones v. Cunningham, (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-01-14 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1963 (xsd:integer)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:fullname
  • Jones v. Cunningham (en)
dbp:googlescholar
dbp:holding
  • A state prisoner who has been placed on parole, under the "custody and control" of a parole board, is "in custody" within the meaning of ; and, on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution. (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • unanimous (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
  • 28 (xsd:integer)
dbp:litigants
  • Jones v. Cunningham (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • Black (en)
dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
  • Pervear v. Massachusetts (en)
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0 (dbd:second)
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0 (dbd:second)
dbp:uspage
  • 236 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 371 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866), the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964), an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Jones v. Cunningham (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Jones v. Cunningham (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License