Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States ex rel. Coy v. United States

United States ex rel. Coy v. United States, 124 F.2d 1019 (6th Cir. 1942)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1942-01-16
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. This cause was submitted to the court upon briefs of counsel and without oral argument, and on consideration whereof, it is ordered .and adjudged that the order of the District Court, 38 F.Supp. 610, dismissing appellant’s petition to correct the sentence and judgment entered against him by the District Court on June 3, 1937, for lack of jurisdiction to entertain it, is in all things affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Judge filed May 9, 1941.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States ex rel. Coy v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES,124 F.2d 1019(6th Cir. 1942)
UNITED STATES ex rel. Bernard Paul COY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES, and Its Authorized Representative, the Honorable Shackelford
Miller, Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky at Owensboro, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 9093.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 16, 1942.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Shackelford Miller, Jr., Judge.
James E. Fahey, of Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

Eli H. Brown, III, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause was submitted to the court upon briefs of counsel and without oral argument, and on consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged that the order of the District Court,38 F. Supp. 610, dismissing appellant's petition to correct the sentence and judgment entered against him by the District Court on June 3, 1937, for lack of jurisdiction to entertain it, is in all things affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Judge filed May 9, 1941.Page 1020