Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Stack v. United States

Stack v. United States, 193 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1951)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-12-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The order denying the motion of appellants to reduce the bail of $50,000.00 is reversed. The case is remanded and the district court ordered to enter orders as follows : For each of the appealing defendants Loretta Starvus Stack William Schneiderman Albert Jason Lima Carl Rude Lambert Oleta O’Connor Yates Henry Steinberg Mary Bernadette Doyle an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $10,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the District Court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court. For each of the following appealing defendants Al Richmond Philip Marshall Connelly Dorothy Rosenblum Healey Rose Chernin Kusnitz Ernest Otto Fox an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $5,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the district court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court. WILLIAM DENMAN Chief Judge ALBERT LEE STEPHENS Circuit Judge WILLIAM HEALY Circuit Judge WALTER L.

Citator

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

Cited by
10 opinions
STACK v. UNITED STATES,193 F.2d 875(9th Cir. 1951)
Loretta Starvus STACK, Al Richmond, Philip Marshall Connelly, Dorothy
Rosenblum Healey, Ernest Otto Fox, William Schneiderman, Carl Rude
Lambert, Henry Steinberg, Oleta O'Connor Yates, Rose Chernin Kusnitz, Mary
Bernadette Doyle, and Albert Jason Lima, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of
America, Appellee.
No. 13180.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 7, 1951.
Appeal from Order Denying Motion to Reduce Bail; Wm. C. Mathes, Judge.
Ben Margolis, A.L. Wirin, Daniel G. Marshall, Leo Branton, Jr. and Alexander H. Schullman, all of Los Angeles, Cal., Norman Leonard, San Francisco, Cal., and Leo A. Sullivan, Oakland, Cal., for appellants.

Walter S. Binns, Acting U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and MATHEWS, STEPHENS, HEALY, BONE, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The order denying the motion of appellants to reduce the bail of $50,000.00 is reversed. The case is remanded and the district court ordered to enter orders as follows:

For each of the appealing defendants
Loretta Starvus Stack William Schneiderman Albert Jason Lima Carl Rude Lambert Oleta O'Connor Yates Henry Steinberg Mary Bernadette Doyle


an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $10,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the District Court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.

For each of the following appealing defendants
Al Richmond Philip Marshall Connelly Dorothy Rosenblum Healey Rose Chernin Kusnitz Ernest Otto Fox


an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $5,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the district court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.
WILLIAM DENMAN Chief Judge ALBERT LEE STEPHENS Circuit Judge WILLIAM HEALY Circuit Judge WALTER L. POPE Circuit Judge
BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
We concur in the order of this court reversing the order of the District Court denying the motion to reduce bail theretofore fixed in the sum of $50,000.

We dissent from the order of this court fixing bail of certain of the appealing defendants at $10,000 and of other appealing defendants in the sum of $5,000, for the reason that we deem said amounts to be inadequate.
HOMER T. BONE WM. E. ORR United States Circuit Judges.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, United States v. Schneiderman, D.C.S.D.Cal.,102 F. Supp. 52, the District Court's order should be affirmed.Page 876