State ex Rel. Magrum v. Nygaard

2 Citing cases

  1. Gobin v. Hancock

    96 N.H. 450 (N.H. 1951)   Cited 11 times
    Explaining that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings

    A determination thereof by this court has therefore become unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. In re Halley, 327 Mich. 222; State ex rel. Magrum v. Nygaard, 38 N.W.2d 370 (1949). Since this appeal the petitioner has filed three other petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this same matter.

  2. Commonwealth v. Johnson

    239 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1968)   Cited 6 times

    We see no parallel in the instant case to those cases which have previously applied the mootness doctrine, and there is no reason to extend its viability. Heard v. State, 78 Ga. App. 150, 50 S.E.2d 787 (1948) (illegal sentence by virtue of clerical error corrected by earlier habeas corpus proceeding); Lemmons v. State, 46 Okla. Crim. 331, 288 P. 351 (1930) (grant of new trial held to moot direct appeal); State ex rel. Magrum v. Nygaard, 76 N.D. 552, 38 N.W.2d 370 (1949) (habeas corpus petition mooted by discharge from imprisonment).Petition of Gabis, 240 Mass. 465, 134 N.E. 267 (1922) (sentence fully served); McGloin v. Warden of Md. House ofCorrection, 137 A.2d 659 (S. Ct. Md., 1958) (parole moots habeas corpus relief), contra, United States ex rel. Cutrone v.Fay, 289 F.2d 470 (2d Cir., 1961); United States ex rel. Lynchv. Fay, 284 F.2d 301 (2d Cir., 1960) (death of relator moots proceeding); Merritt v. State, 150 S.E. 551 (Ga.App., 1929) (execution of appellant moots relief).