Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. William McKenna v. David N. Myers, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania

United States Ex Rel. William McKenna v. David N. Myers, Superintendent State Corr. Inst., Graterford, Pa., 342 F.2d 998 (3d Cir. 1965)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-04-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the district court, 232 F.Supp. 65, denying the petition for habeas corpus in this case will be affirmed upon the excellent opinion of Judge Freedman in the district court on rehearing of the denial of said petition, 230 F.Supp. 278. Counsel representing appellant by assignment from this court has our deep thanks for his able, lawyer-like efforts on behalf of appellant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States of America Ex Rel. William McKenna v. David N. Myers, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1 opinion
UNITED STATES v. MYERS,342 F.2d 998(3rd Cir. 1965)
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William McKENNA, Appellant, v. David N.
MYERS, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford,
Pennsylvania.
No. 15042.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued March 16, 1965.
Decided April 2, 1965.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Abraham L. Freedman, Judge.
Alex Bonavitacola, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Gordon Gelfond, Philadelphia, Pa. (Morton E. Frankel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the district court,232 F. Supp. 65, denying the petition for habeas corpus in this case will be affirmed upon the excellent opinion of Judge Freedman in the district court on rehearing of the denial of said petition,230 F. Supp. 278. Counsel representing appellant by assignment from this court has our deep thanks for his able, lawyer-like efforts on behalf of appellant.Page 999