In re Barlow
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Carey v. Saffold (Supreme Court of the United States 2002)
- Valdez, Justin Todd (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
- Ex parte Valdez (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
- Reyes v. Craven (9th Cir. 2004)
- Phillip Lewis Lindquist v. Darrol Gardner, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution (9th Cir. 1985)
- Snyder v. Ramirez (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 2023)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The supreme court having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Jennings, 46 Ida. 142, 267 Pac. 227) will not exercise its power (Const., art. 5, sec. 9; C. S., sec. 9275) to grant an original writ of habeas corpus except in extraordinary eases. (In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 Pac. 575; Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St. 440; State v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N. W. 896, L. R. A. 1915B, 95; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex. App. 120; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Crim. 48, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. 256, 58 S. W. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435, 36 S. W. 81; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 223; Ex parte Nabors, 33 N. M. 324, 267 Pac. 58; People v. *310 Adams, 83 Colo. 321, 264 Pac. 1090; Commonwealth v. Curry, 285 Pa. 289, 132 Atl. 370; Ex parte Mulholland, 13 Cal. App. 734, 110 Pac. 585; 13 Cal. Jur., “Habeas Corpus,” sec. 37; 29 C. J. 141.) Application has not been made to the district court of the county and no sufficient reason is assigned for first invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court. ‘
The petition is accordingly denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.