Connors v. Pine

D.C. Circuit

Connors v. Pine

153 F.2d 643, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 359

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1946

DocketNo. 100

StatusPublished

This text of 153 F.2d 643 (Connors v. Pine) 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

Connors v. Pine, 153 F.2d 643, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 359 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of petition for leave to file herein petition for writ of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, or other relief, It is

Ordered by the Court that leave to file the petition be, and it is hereby, granted, and that the petition for writ of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, or other relief be, and it is hereby, denied.

In denying the petition for the writ in the above-entitled matter we are of the opinion that the orderly administration of justice will be better served by our declining to exercise appellate jurisdiction in the mode desired. Admittedly petitioner has his remedy by appeal, and we see no reason why that remedy is not altogether adequate in the circumstances of this case. Cf. In re Chapman, 156 U..S. 211, 15 S.Ct. 331, 39 L.Ed. 401; United States ex rel. Deffer v. Kimball, 7 App.D.C. 499; and see Note (1942) 141 A.L.R. 1262 et seq. We accordingly express no opinion on the point involved.

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

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of petition for leave to file herein petition for writ of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, or other relief, It is

Ordered by the Court that leave to file the petition be, and it is hereby, granted, and that the petition for writ of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, or other relief be, and it is hereby, denied.

In denying the petition for the writ in the above-entitled matter we are of the opinion that the orderly administration of justice will be better served by our declining to exercise appellate jurisdiction in the mode desired. Admittedly petitioner has his remedy by appeal, and we see no reason why that remedy is not altogether adequate in the circumstances of this case. Cf. In re Chapman, 156 U..S. 211, 15 S.Ct. 331, 39 L.Ed. 401; United States ex rel. Deffer v. Kimball, 7 App.D.C. 499; and see Note (1942) 141 A.L.R. 1262 et seq. We accordingly express no opinion on the point involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 F.2d 643, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connors-v-pine-cadc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack