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

Schuler v. Israel

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 506 • Waite Court
In Schuler v. Israel, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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 petitioner, Schuler, was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence of two years. Schuler had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court of Kansas, claiming that he was being...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: 1886
Docket: 1018
120 U.S. 506
7 S. Ct. 648
30 L. Ed. 707
1887 U.S. LEXIS 1995

Schuler v. Israel

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Schuler v. Israel, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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 petitioner, Schuler, was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence of two years. Schuler had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court of Kansas, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ and ordered Schuler's release. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schuler v. Israel, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and disregarded precedent. He argued that under existing case law, a party who has been wrongfully deprived of property is entitled to recover damages for its value at the time it was taken from them, regardless of whether or not they have since reacquired possession of it. In this case, he noted that although Schuler had regained possession of his land through an adverse judgment against Israel's predecessor-in-title, he still suffered a loss due to being denied use and enjoyment during the intervening period between when he was first dispossessed and when he regained title. Justice Field concluded by asserting that if Schuler were not allowed to recover damages for this loss then "the wrongdoer would be permitted to escape with impunity."

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Mar 07, 1887
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