Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Johnson v. Tinsley

Johnson v. Tinsley, 337 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1964)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1964-10-22
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the trial court, denying the writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed for the reasons so ably expressed by the opinion of that court reported in 234 F.Supp. 866.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Johnson v. Tinsley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

JOHNSON v. TINSLEY,337 F.2d 856(10th Cir. 1964)

James Albert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden, Colorado

State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 7795.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

October 22, 1964.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; William E. Doyle, Judge.

Richard J. Beacom, Westminster, Colo., for appellant.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court, denying the writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed for the reasons so ably expressed by the opinion of that court reported in234 F. Supp. 866.Page 888