# Darr v. Burford

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 3, 1950 · 339 U.S. 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420461

## Case

- **Full name:** Darr v. Burford, Warden
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 3, 1950
- **Citations:** 339 U.S. 200; 70 S. Ct. 587; 94 L. Ed. 2d 761; 94 L. Ed. 761; 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Burton
- **Judges:** Reed, Burton, Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 850 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420461

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that principles of comity generally require “that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the m…
- noting 19 that comity “teaches that one court should defer actions on causes properly within its 20 jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already 21 cognizant of the litigation, have an opportunity to pass upon the matter”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Burton,
with whom Mr. Justice Clark joins, concurs in the judgment and opinion of the Court, except for any indication it may contain that, although the reasons for a denial of certiorari are not stated, they nevertheless may be inferred from the record. He believes that the nature of the proceeding is such that, when the reasons for a denial of certiorari are not stated, the denial should be disregarded in passing upon a subsequent application for relief, except to note that this source of possible relief has been exhausted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420461. Public record. Not legal advice.