Charles E. Toliver v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Charles E. Toliver v. United States

218 F.2d 148, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3238

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1954

Docket14395

StatusPublished

This text of 218 F.2d 148 (Charles E. Toliver v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles E. Toliver v. United States, 218 F.2d 148, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3238 (9th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

Attorney Gregory S. Stout moves for appellant an extension of time to January 9, 1955 to file an opening brief which he failed to file when due on November 20, 1954. The ground of his application is that the attorney has accepted an assignment by a District Court of Appeal of the State of California, an inferior state court, to write a report pertaining to an analysis of a provision of the California Constitution.

It further appears that Mr. 'Stout’s client is, during his appeal, in the custody of this court in the San Francisco County Jail and that during such custody he is not serving time on the sentence from which his appeal is pending. That is to say, the wrong already done his client by not filing even now the brief due November 20, 1954, he seeks to extend by adding 30 days more to his client’s imprisonment.

Whether such wrongful conduct by an officer of this court constitutes a contempt is not to be determined on this motion. However, unless the appellant’s brief is filed within ten days hereof, the question of Mr. Stout’s conduct is certain to be raised.

Time to file appellant’s opening brief is extended to December 17, 1954.

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

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

Attorney Gregory S. Stout moves for appellant an extension of time to January 9, 1955 to file an opening brief which he failed to file when due on November 20, 1954. The ground of his application is that the attorney has accepted an assignment by a District Court of Appeal of the State of California, an inferior state court, to write a report pertaining to an analysis of a provision of the California Constitution.

It further appears that Mr. 'Stout’s client is, during his appeal, in the custody of this court in the San Francisco County Jail and that during such custody he is not serving time on the sentence from which his appeal is pending. That is to say, the wrong already done his client by not filing even now the brief due November 20, 1954, he seeks to extend by adding 30 days more to his client’s imprisonment.

Whether such wrongful conduct by an officer of this court constitutes a contempt is not to be determined on this motion. However, unless the appellant’s brief is filed within ten days hereof, the question of Mr. Stout’s conduct is certain to be raised.

Time to file appellant’s opening brief is extended to December 17, 1954.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 148, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-e-toliver-v-united-states-ca9-1954.