Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Willie Wilson and Morris Griffin v. United States

255 F.2d 686

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1958-07-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In his well considered and thoughtful opinion, 1 the district judge carefully stated and as carefully canvassed the questions raised on this appeal and fully and correctly dealt with them. Because he did, it will serve no useful purpose for us to restate or rediscuss them. It will be sufficient to say that we agree with the opinion of the district judge, and, upon the considerations and for the reasons stated by him, the judgment is affirmed. CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Willie Wilson and Morris Griffin v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
WILSON v. UNITED STATES,255 F.2d 686(5th Cir. 1958)
Willie WILSON and Morris Griffin, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America,
Appellee.
No. 17051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 1958.
Rehearing Denied July 30, 1958.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Judge.

See, also,159 F. Supp. 159.
John C. Walters, Troy, Ala., L.H. Walden, Montgomery, Ala., for appellant.

Hartwell Davis, U.S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., Robert E. Varner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In his well considered and thoughtful opinion,1the district judge carefully stated and as carefully canvassed the questions raised on this appeal and fully and correctly dealt with them. Because he did, it will serve no useful purpose for us to restate or rediscuss them. It will be sufficient to say that we agree with the opinion of the district judge, and, upon the considerations and for the reasons stated by him, the judgment is affirmed.
CAMERON, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result.Page 702
  1. United States v. Wilson and Griffin,158 F. Supp. 442. ↩