Moyer v. Nichols
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Smith (Idaho 1990)
- Walker v. State (Idaho 1968)
- Bert Strand, Sheriff of San Diego County, State of California v. William Schmittroth (9th Cir. 1956)
- State v. Barnhouse (Idaho Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Hansen (Idaho 1980)
- State ex rel. Wiley v. Waggoner (Tenn. 1973)
- Jones v. State (Idaho 1970)
- Burge v. State (Idaho 1966)
- State v. Stewart (Idaho 1964)
- Washington v. Renouf (Utah 1956)
- State ex rel. Stipec v. Owen (Mo. Ct. App. 1954)
- State v. Moore (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1946)
- People v. Sergent (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)
- In re Blades (Idaho 1939)
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
MOYER
v.
NICHOLS.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. Edmund F. Richardson and Mr. Clarence S. Darrow, with whom Mr. John H. Murphy was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. James H. Hawley, with whom Mr. W.E. Borah was on the brief, for appellee.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.
This case does not differ, in principle or in its facts, from Pettibone v. Nichols, just decided. Moyer was also charged with the murder of Steunenberg, and was arrested in Colorado, upon the warrant of the Governor of that State, and taken to Idaho, and delivered to its authorities. He was embraced in the same indictment with Pettibone, and was held in custody for trial under that indictment. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of Idaho, but the writ was *222 dismissed by that court, Ex parte Moyer, 85 Pac. 897, and a writ of error has been prosecuted to this court. That is case No. 266 on our present docket. He then sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of the United States, and his discharge being refused by the court, he prosecuted the present appeal.
For the reason stated in Pettibone's case, the final order is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissents.
The final order of the Circuit Court of the United States for Idaho, in Haywood v. Nichols, No. 251, on appeal, is affirmed on the authority of Pettibone v. Nichols, ante, p. 192, from which, as to the facts or the questions involved, it does not differ. The orders in Pettibone v. Whitney, No. 265, Morey v. Whitney, No. 266, and Haywood v. Whitney, No. 267 each of which cases is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of Idaho involve the same questions as those determined in Pettibone v. Nichols, and by agreement is to depend upon the judgment in that case, must also be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissents.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.