Parker v. Ellis, General Manager, Texas Prison System
362 U.S. 574 · No. 38 · 1959 term · Warren Court
Decided May 16, 1960 · argued Jan 20, 1960
Judicial power · No merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of jurisdiction
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Parker lost.
What this ruling means
Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit stands.
Parker was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court decision (per curiam) in which the court granted certiorari to review dismissal of petitioner's application for a habeas corpus review. The petitioner claimed that his conviction in a state court had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. However, the petitioner was released from incarceration before his case could be heard.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1959 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John HarlanWrote a concurrence
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Earl WarrenWrote a dissent
Hugo BlackJoined a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- ParkerPerson convicted of crime
- Respondent
- Ellis, General Manager, Texas Prison SystemState (Texas)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 16, 1960DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: petition denied or appeal dismissed. Parker lost.
- Jan 20, 1960ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on no merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of jurisdiction, newest first.
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., et al.551 U.S. 224Jun 18, 2007 · 551 U.S. 224Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Brad Hanson550 U.S. 511May 21, 2007 · 550 U.S. 511Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Providence Journal Co. et al.485 U.S. 693May 2, 1988 · 485 U.S. 693Judicial power6–27–2 band
- O'Dell et al. v. Espinoza, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Espinoza and As Guardian, et al.456 U.S. 430May 4, 1982 · 456 U.S. 430Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Princeton University et al. v. Schmid455 U.S. 100Jan 13, 1982 · 455 U.S. 100Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Cardinale v. Louisiana394 U.S. 437Apr 1, 1969 · 394 U.S. 437Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.