§
In the Matter of J

7 Cited authorities

  1. Ginsberg Sons v. Popkin

    285 U.S. 204 (1932)   Cited 280 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing sections of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898

  2. Miller v. Aderhold

    288 U.S. 206 (1933)   Cited 109 times
    In Miller v. Aderhold, 288 U.S. 206, 53 S.Ct. 325, 326, 77 L.Ed. 702, the petitioner was given a suspended sentence and was discharged from custody.

  3. Biddle v. Perovich

    274 U.S. 480 (1927)   Cited 62 times
    Concluding that requiring consent “would permit the President to decide that justice requires the diminution of a term * * * without consulting the convict, but would deprive him of the power in the most important cases and require him to permit an execution which he had decided ought not to take place,” in the absence of the recipient's consent to the clemency

  4. The People v. Jenkins

    325 Ill. 372 (Ill. 1927)   Cited 23 times
    Upholding the commutation of a life sentence to a term of eight years and three months

  5. People ex Rel. Newton v. Twombly

    126 N.E. 255 (N.Y. 1920)   Cited 29 times
    In Twombly, supra, the New York Court of Appeals construed a statute which provided: "Where a person, under sentence for a felony, afterwards commits any other felony, and is thereof convicted and sentenced to another term of imprisonment, the latter term shall not begin until the expiration of all the terms of imprisonment, to which he is already sentenced."

  6. Ex Parte Warren

    265 P. 656 (Okla. Crim. App. 1928)   Cited 3 times

    No. A-6770. Opinion Filed March 24, 1928. (Syllabus.) 1. Pardon — Subsequent Revocation Held not to Deprive Recipient of Benefits of Commutation of Sentence by Governor. When a commutation has been signed by the executive, properly attested, authenticated by the seal of the state, and delivered to the recipient and by him delivered to the warden of the penitentiary who enters the same upon his record, the recipient cannot be deprived of its benefits and immunities by a subsequent revocation. 2. Same

  7. Ex Parte: William Wells

    59 U.S. 307 (1855)   Cited 21 times
    In Ex parte Wells, 59 U.S. 307, 18 How. 307, 15 L.Ed. 421 (1856), for example, only the dissent thought that the fact of a conviction and sentence precluded granting habeas relief (as today's opinion says was the firm rule).