Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Ex Parte Smith

• 1876 • 94 U.S. 455 • Waite Court
Ex parte Smith is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Smith, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, claiming that he was being unlawfully detained in a federal prison. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal prison to release Smith. The federal government appealed the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1876
94 U.S. 455
24 L. Ed. 165
1876 U.S. LEXIS 1888

Ex Parte Smith

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Ex parte Smith is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Smith, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, claiming that he was being unlawfully detained in a federal prison. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal prison to release Smith. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are being held in violation of federal law. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ in this case.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Ex Parte Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this case because it lacked personal jurisdiction over either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their power of judicial authority within their own borders regardless of where the parties reside. He reasoned that if states were denied such authority then they would become powerless when dealing with out-of-state litigants who could easily evade service or ignore judgments rendered against them due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to exercise such power would promote justice and protect citizens’ rights since individuals should not be able to escape liability simply by residing outside of a particular state's boundaries.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Mar 26, 1877
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms