Anders v. Overholser

D.C. Circuit

Anders v. Overholser

168 F.2d 151, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1948

DocketNo. 9586

StatusPublished

This text of 168 F.2d 151 (Anders v. Overholser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anders v. Overholser, 168 F.2d 151, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021 (D.C. Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER curiam:.

This appellant was first committed to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in 1925 and, except for two periods of release, has been under treatment there continuously. Upon the filing of the petition for this writ of habeas corpus, a full hearing was had by the court, at which several witnesses, including psychiatrists and members of her family, testified. The petitioner herself testified. The court concluded that she continued to be of unsound mind and recommitted her to the custody of the authorities at St. Elizabeth’s. We find nothing in the record to throw doubt upon the validity of the conclusions of the trial court, and its judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER curiam:.

This appellant was first committed to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in 1925 and, except for two periods of release, has been under treatment there continuously. Upon the filing of the petition for this writ of habeas corpus, a full hearing was had by the court, at which several witnesses, including psychiatrists and members of her family, testified. The petitioner herself testified. The court concluded that she continued to be of unsound mind and recommitted her to the custody of the authorities at St. Elizabeth’s. We find nothing in the record to throw doubt upon the validity of the conclusions of the trial court, and its judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F.2d 151, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anders-v-overholser-cadc-1948.