Alabama v. Davis
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Washington v. Strickland (5th Cir. 1982)
- Alvord v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1983)
- Marlowe Valentine v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022)
- Taylor v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)
- Hosey Johnson v. Donald A. Cabana and the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi (5th Cir. 1986)
- United States ex rel. Rivera v. Franzen (7th Cir. 1986)
- Dill v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
- Alvord v. Wainwright (11th Cir. 1984)
- Rogers v. Israel (7th Cir. 1984)
- Charles Sylvester Bell v. John C. Watkins, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1983)
- David Dene Martin v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, and William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana (5th Cir. 1983)
- Jones v. Thigpen (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1983)
- Commonwealth v. Smith (Pa. 1983)
- Fleming v. Zant (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1983)
- Dufresne v. Moran (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1983)
- Baldwin v. Maggio (5th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Ghandtchi (11th Cir. 1983)
- Knight v. State (Fla. 1981)
- Asociación de Fotoperiodistas de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Rivera Schatz (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2011)
- Moreno Orama v. de la Torre (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2010)
- Moreno Orama Y Otro v. José R. De La Torre, Presidente De La UPR Y Otros (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2010)
- Robert Lee Brown v. Frank Blackburn, Warden (5th Cir. 1980)
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
446 U.S. 903
100 S.Ct. 1827
State of ALABAMA
v.
James G. DAVIS
No. 79-711
Supreme Court of the United States
April 21, 1980
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and that court is directed to remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate the order denying the petition fora writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting.
In United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36, the Court stated that
"[t]he established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system that has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss."
But that need not be done in this case, first, because respondent Davis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed by the District Court on motion by Davis after the State's petition for a writ of certiorari had been filed. See Supplement to Petition for Cert. 6. And second, it should be noted that the judgment of the Court of Appeals did not order that Davis be released from custody, but merely held that his attorneys had failed to discharge their duty to their client, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for a evidentiary hearing to determine whether that failure had prejudiced him. 596 F.2d 1214, 1223. If such a hearing should one day be held in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and should Davis ultimately succeed in getting his conviction vacated, there will still be an opportunity for this Court to review any decision on the merits. In the meantime, it is difficult to see what harm would flow to the State if we were simply to let the judgment of the Court of Appeals stand. There is no realistic possibility that the judgment could "spawn[] any legal consequences." United States v. Munsingwear, supra, 340 U.S., at 41, 71 S.Ct., at 107. Thus, there is no particular justification for this Court's intervention.
Accordingly, I would simply deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Opinion after remand, 667 F.2d 366.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.