Supreme Court of the United States, 1946

Ex parte Betz

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 14, 1946 · Application, Appropriate, Are, Being, Black, Consideration, Corpus, Declined, Denied, Determined, Endo, Entertain, Hawk, Jurisdiction, Miscellaneous, Murphy, Petitions, Prejudice, Procedure, Questions, Ragen, Relief, See, Should, That, Took, Where

329 U.S. 672 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Ahrens v. Clark (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
Eisentrager v. Forrestal (D.C. Cir. 1949)
In re Dammann (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
In re Muhlbauer (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
In re Steimle (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
In re Felsch (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
Everett v. Truman (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
Rieke v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Ehlen (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Gronwald (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Stattmann (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Vetter (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Eckstein (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
In re Heim (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)

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 motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied for want of original jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that, as in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114 (see also White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 765) where this Court declined to entertain an application for relief by habeas corpus, the petitions for habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice to their being filed in the appropriate District Court. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 304-306. Mr. Justice Murphy is of the view that these petitions raise questions as to jurisdiction and proper procedure which should be heard and determined by this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the application in No. 19, Miscellaneous.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.