State ex rel. McNeely v. Henderson
State ex rel. McNeely v. Henderson, 239 So. 2d 364 (La. 1970).
Cited by
- Home Bank, N. A. v. Golden La Properties, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- First Bank & Trust v. Tedesco 106 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Security Homestead Fed. Sav. v. Ullo 589 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
- Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Slaughter 563 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
- Louisiana Ass'n for the Blind v. Robertson 552 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
- American Bank & Trust Co. v. Bandaries 552 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
- First Guar. Bk. v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc. 529 So. 2d 834 La. 1988
- Bonfanti v. Davis 487 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
- Evangeline Bank & Trust Co. v. Guillory 364 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
- Dubois v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 276 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Stigler v. Bell 276 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
- Thrift Funds of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Jones 274 So. 2d 150 La. 1973
Opinion text
Not considered. An application identical to the one now pending was previously denied by both our state district court and this court, upon a determination that a writ of habeas corpus was not warranted after a consideration of the application and attached documents. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 354. Relator then filed the same application in federal district court. There a federal district judge, who apparently had a view contrary to that of our state courts and believed an evidentiary hearing should be held, retained jurisdiction over the application but “requested” or ordered the state district court to hold the evidentiary hearing. The state courts make.our own determination as to whether a relator is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in an application for writ of habeas corpus. The federal district court may hold its own evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 . It has neither the right nor the power to order a state district court to hold such a hearing on a writ application pending in a federal court. While we are appreciative that in most instances the federal district courts require applicants for writ of habeas corpus to have exhausted their remedies in the state courts, our determination that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted is a final disposition of the application by the state courts; and if the federal court makes a contrary determination, it may use its own personnel and money in the exercise of its jurisdiction.