In Dowd, Warden v. United States ex rel. Cook (1950), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cook, a prisoner who had been denied parole by Indiana state authorities due to an error in calculating his sentence term. The court held that the denial of parole was unconstitutional as it violated Cook's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case centered around whether or not time spent on probation should count towards a prison sentence - with the court ruling that it should indeed be counted and thus reducing Cook's overall sentence length which made him eligible for parole consideration immediately rather than at a later date as initially determined by Indiana authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Dowd, Warden v. United States Ex Rel. Cook, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was a departure from established legal principles and an overextension of federal judicial power into state criminal proceedings. He contended that it is not within the purview of federal courts to review state court decisions unless there has been a clear violation of constitutional rights or gross miscarriage of justice. In this case, he believed neither had occurred as Cook had received due process in his trial and sentencing by Indiana courts where he was convicted for armed robbery while on parole for another crime. The fact that his sentence included time remaining from his previous conviction did not constitute double jeopardy or cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution according to Frankfurter.