{
  "id": 2484438,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, ex relatione Henry Harris v. Edmund D. Taylor",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Harris v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1835-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 202"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 202"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Cranch 75",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Cranch",
      "case_ids": [
        6757018,
        639414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/dc/4/0075-01",
        "/us/8/0046-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1664,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.666,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46919067482312676
    },
    "sha256": "f516d9f4c8aff9bc7096fcfcd39b0861abb712d9a7abfa70bae626e1164a470a",
    "simhash": "1:40f7904aa7aa8044",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, ex relatione Henry Harris v. Edmund D. Taylor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe allowance of a writ of Habeas Corpus in this case is refused. The Court has no original jurisdiction to authorize the allowance of such writs, unless it be in the exercise of their appellate powers. In the present instance, the party who it is said is restrained of her liberty, does not appear to be held under, or by virtue of any process or other legal authority, or the color of any, but is alleged to be holden without pretence of right, and by mere arbitrary force. It cannot be doubted that the Court have no jurisdiction in the case.\nIn the case of Bollman and Swartwout, the Supreme Court of the United States, whose organization under the constitution of the United States, is similar to ours, as an apellate Court, decided that it had no authority, except as an appellate Court- in the review of legal proceedings, to entertain jurisdiction and allow writs of Habeas Corpus. The party can apply to a judge of this Court or to one of the judges of the Circuit Courts, and obtain the writ.\nMotion disallowed.\n4 Cranch 75; 2 Peters\u2019 Cond. R. 33.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. Cowles, for the People.",
      "A. P. Field, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, ex relatione Henry Harris v. Edmund D. Taylor.\nApplication for a writ of Habeas Corpus.\nThe Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to authorize the allowance of writs of Hateas Carpus. It has no authority except as an appellate Court, in the review of legal proceedings, to allow writs of Habeas Corpus. But a party can apply for such writ to one of the judges of the Supreme Court, or to one of the judges of the Circuit Courts, and obtain the w rit. \u2022\nA. Cowles, for the People.\nA. P. Field, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 202
}