Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, alleging denial of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, was quashed on the merits by an inferior Florida court whose action was affirmed without opinion by the Florida Supreme Court. It was impossible to ascertain whether the affirmance was on the merits or on the ground that, under Florida law, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure to raise the due process issue. A later decision by the Florida Supreme Court clearly established that the prior case had been decided on the merits of the constitutional question, and that habeas corpus was available in Florida to raise the due process issue. Petitioner did not seek review of the Florida court's decision by certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, but later instituted habeas corpus proceedings in a federal district court which ordered his release. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, the district court had properly exercised its discretion to issue the writ. Four justices dissented on the ground that, because petitioner had failed to exhaust his "state remedies," the constitutional question was not properly before the court. Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270 (1948).
E. W. Rothe, Jr.,
HABEAS CORPUS-FEDERAL COURTS-EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss5/18