Daniel P. Murphy v. Hoyt C. Cupp

Ninth Circuit

Daniel P. Murphy v. Hoyt C. Cupp

479 F.2d 1327

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Daniel P. Murphy v. Hoyt C. Cupp. Read the opinion of the Court — 461 F.2d 1006 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 12, 1973·No. 71-2203·Published

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In a previous opinion concerning the subject cause, we reversed the judgment of the District Court. Murphy v. Cupp, 461 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1972). Thereafter, the appellee’s petition for certiorari was granted, and the Supreme Court, reversing our judgment, has now remanded the cause to this court, “for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court.” Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed. 2d 900 (1973).

The Supreme Court’s mandate has now issued. Pursuant to that mandate, we now hold that the District Court’s judgment should be, and it hereby is,

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In a previous opinion concerning the subject cause, we reversed the judgment of the District Court. Murphy v. Cupp, 461 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1972). Thereafter, the appellee’s petition for certiorari was granted, and the Supreme Court, reversing our judgment, has now remanded the cause to this court, “for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court.” Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed. 2d 900 (1973).

The Supreme Court’s mandate has now issued. Pursuant to that mandate, we now hold that the District Court’s judgment should be, and it hereby is,

Affirmed.

Daniel P. Murphy v. Hoyt C. Cupp, 479 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

479 F.2d 1327 (Daniel P. Murphy v. Hoyt C. Cupp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related