No. 23-7642
John A. Beatty v. Jay Forshey, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-law criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus judicial-review legal-standards precedent precedent-validity standing statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is McCarthy V United States, 394 U.S. 459(1969); Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2(1866); Greenholtz V Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979); Oregon v Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975);Vitak v. Jones, 443 U.S. 480(1980) still good law
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is McCarthy V United States, Ex Parte Milligan, Greenholtz V Nebraska Penal Inmates, Oregon v Hass, Vitak v. Jones still good law
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-12
Waiver of right of respondent Forshey, Warden to respond filed.
2024-04-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 5, 2024)
Attorneys
Forshey, Warden
Michael Jason Hendershot — Ohio Attorney General's Office, Respondent
John A. Beatty
John Beatty — Petitioner