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

Walden v. Knevals

• 1884 • 114 U.S. 373 • Waite Court
Walden v. Knevals was 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 held in another state. The case arose when a prisoner, Walden, was held in a prison in the state of Georgia, but was being held on a writ of habeas corpus issued by a court in the state of Alabama. Walden argued that the writ was invalid because it was issued by a court in a different state. The Supreme Court held that 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: 1884
Docket: 220
114 U.S. 373
5 S. Ct. 898
29 L. Ed. 167
1885 U.S. LEXIS 1769

Walden v. Knevals

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Walden v. Knevals was 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 held in another state. The case arose when a prisoner, Walden, was held in a prison in the state of Georgia, but was being held on a writ of habeas corpus issued by a court in the state of Alabama. Walden argued that the writ was invalid because it was issued by a court in a different state. The Supreme Court held that the writ was valid, and that the state court had the authority to issue it. The Court reasoned that the writ was issued in accordance with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires states to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of other states. The Court also noted that the writ was issued in accordance with the Extradition Clause of the Constitution, which allows for the extradition of persons from one state to another. The Court's decision in Walden v. Knevals established that state courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in other states. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that state courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in other states.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Walden v. Knevals, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important evidence presented by both parties. He argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that a contract existed between the two parties, which would have allowed for recovery of damages from Knevals as per their agreement. Furthermore, he noted that even if no contract did exist between them, it could still be inferred from their actions and correspondence with one another. As such, Justice Field concluded that Walden should have been granted relief on either basis and thus disagreed with the majority's ruling denying him any compensation or damages from Knevals.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Apr 13, 1885
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