Peyton v. Rowe
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The three confirmed limited treatments of Peyton v. Rowe are listed below. Neale v. Pfeiffer rejected a literal extension of Peyton's reference to private restraints where no government was involved; Ward v. Knoblock refused to extend its future-sentence rule to a fully served past sentence; and Mays v. Dinwiddie refused to extend its continuous-custody theory to an expired concurrent sentence. The other citing opinions applied or extended Peyton, reported its overruling of McNally v. Hill, or used nearby treatment words for unrelated matters.
902 later cases cite Peyton v. Rowe; 112 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Peyton v. Rowe?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court rejected a literal extension of Peyton's reference to private restraints, requiring governmental involvement before habeas relief could reach confinement by a private party.
Neale v. Pfeiffer · S.D. Ohio · filed
Read literally, it would appear to give credence to the contention that a writ of habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy in a situation where a petitioner is wrongfully detained by a purely private party. However, the case law does not support such a literal reading. On the contrary, the golden thread which runs through every habeas case of which the Court is aware is that there is some governmental involvement in the detention, confinement or custody.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit declined to extend Peyton's future-sentence custody rule to permit a habeas challenge to a sentence that had already been fully served.
Ward v. Knoblock · Sixth Circuit · filed
Apparently, petitioner's reasoning is that if under Peyton the "in custody" requirement must be read to allow prisoners to use habeas corpus petitions to challenge future confinement, the same analysis should logically work in reverse to compel the conclusion that the "in custody" language permits prisoners to challenge past confinement. This syllogism fails. Neither the language of the statute nor the manifest purpose of the writ goes that far.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit declined to extend Peyton's continuous-custody theory for consecutive sentences to a fully expired concurrent sentence.
Mays v. Dinwiddie · Tenth Circuit · filed
Most importantly, Mr. Mays has not cited, nor have we found, any decision that has applied “the continuous stream” theory of Peyton and Garlotte to an expired concurrent sentence. In those two cases, the Supreme Court expressly applied its holdings to consecutive sentences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Peyton v. Rowe and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace