Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
- Decided
- February 21, 1978
- Docket
- 76-5325
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,383 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled, superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Gonzalez v. Thaler
What later courts said
- holding that the thirty day limit in which to file an appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional” — In Re: Sulzer Orthopedics and Knee Prosthesis Products Liability Litigation. Shirley C. Butler v. Certified Class (2005)
- holding that a district court’s order granting a conditional writ was “final” even though the court had not decided, as was then required by statute, whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary — Eric Scott Patterson v. Thomas B. Haskins, Warden (2006)
- holding that an appeal from the denial of an untimely motion for reconsideration does not bring up for review the underlying judg- ment — Richard Kananen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review an order directing petitioner’s discharge from respondent’s custody because respondent’s appeal was untimely. In order to resolve this question, we must consider the applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 (b) and 59 in habeas corpus proceedings. Because we conclude that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, w© reverse.[1]
[*259] I On January 29, 1971, a teenage girl reported to Chicago police that she had been raped. She gave a physical description of her assailants to one officer and told another officer that one of her attackers was named “Browder,” was about 17 years old, and lived in the 4000 block of West Monroe. On the basis of this information and further investigation, the police focused on petitioner’s brother, Tyrone Browder, whose name was in the files of the Youth Division of the Chicago Police Department. A telephone conversation between a Youth Division officer and Mrs. Lucille Browder shifted the officers’ suspicions from Tyrone to petitioner, and Mrs. Browder agreed to keep both her sons at home until the police arrived to talk to them. Four officers interviewed petitioner and his brother, both of whom denied knowledge of the rape. The officers arrested the brothers along with two other teenage Negro males who were present at the Browder home. The four arrestees were taken to the police station, where another officer noticed that petitioner fit the description of the assailant in a rape that had taken place on January 30. In separate lineups, each complainant identified petitioner as her assailant. After being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), petitioner confessed [*260] to the second rape but denied having committed the rape on January 29.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.