Chessman v. Teets
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Caryl Chessman v. Harley O. Teets, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California (9th Cir. 1956)
- In re Carmen (Cal. 1957)
- In RE WHITE v. Rhay (Wash. 1965)
- United States of America Ex Rel. John McGrath v. J. E. Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York (2d Cir. 1963)
- Chessman v. Teets (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1956)
- Chessman v. Teets (Supreme Court of the United States 1957)
- Application of Landeros (District Court, D. New Jersey 1957)
- Henry Simpson v. Harley O. Teets, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin (9th Cir. 1956)
- Nevail Mitchell v. Donald Wyrick (8th Cir. 1983)
- Leroy Edward Green v. Camilla Maraio and Angelo J. Ingrassia (2d Cir. 1983)
- State v. Allen (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968)
- United States Ex Rel. Almeida v. Rundle (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1966)
- Jimmy L. Davis v. George A. Kropp, Warden, State Prison of Southern Michigan (6th Cir. 1965)
- People v. Chessman (Cal. 1959)
- United States of America Ex Rel. Robert Lee Goldsby v. William Harpole, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman, Mississippi (5th Cir. 1957)
- Burwell v. Teets (9th Cir. 1957)
- United States ex rel. Goldsby v. Harpole (5th Cir. 1957)
- Sexton v. Barry (6th Cir. 1956)
- Fay v. Noia (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
- George T. Jordan v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, George T. Jordan v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1956)
- Sexton v. Barry (6th Cir. 1956)
- People v. Williams CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
- R-S-J (Board of Immigration Appeals 1999)
- Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Herman v. Claudy (Supreme Court of the United States 1956)
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
Petitioner applied to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Southern Division, for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court from a conviction for a capital offense had been heard upon a fraudulently prepared transcript of the trial proceedings. The official court reporter had died before completing the transcription of his stenographic notes of the trial, and petitioner alleges that the prosecuting attorney and the substitute reporter selected by him had, by corrupt arrangement, prepared the fraudulent transcript. On the record before us, there is no denial of petitioner’s allegations. The District Court, without issuing the writ or an order to show cause, dismissed the application as not stating a cause of action. 128 F. Supp. 600. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court. 221 F. 2d 276. The charges of fraud as such set forth a denial of due process of law in violation of the *4 Fourteenth Amendment. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. Without intimating any opinion regarding the validity of the claim, we hold that in the circumstances disclosed by the record before us the application should not have been summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.