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

United States v. Allison

• 1875 • 91 U.S. 303 • Waite Court
United States v. Allison was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The case involved a man named William Allison, who had been convicted of murder in the state of Tennessee and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus...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: 1875
Docket: 643
91 U.S. 303
23 L. Ed. 372
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1365

United States v. Allison

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

United States v. Allison was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The case involved a man named William Allison, who had been convicted of murder in the state of Tennessee and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used as a substitute for a criminal trial. The Court's decision in United States v. Allison was significant because it established that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to support the idea that the federal court should not interfere with the state's criminal justice system.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In United States v. Allison, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a defendant could be convicted of both an offense against the United States and one against a state when they were based on the same act or transaction. The majority opinion held that such convictions would not violate double jeopardy protections because each offense had its own distinct elements and punishments. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that allowing multiple convictions for offenses arising out of the same act violated fundamental principles of justice by punishing someone twice for what is essentially one crime. He argued that it was unfair to punish someone more severely than if they had committed two separate acts since their conduct did not change in either case; thus, he concluded that only one conviction should be allowed regardless of how many jurisdictions are involved in prosecuting it.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Jan 31, 1876
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