Dean v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Dean v. United States

30 F.2d 523, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1929

DocketNo. 8186

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 F.2d 523 (Dean v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dean v. United States, 30 F.2d 523, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445 (8th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant petitioned for and was refused a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Kenyon, from which order of denial he has appealed. The appellee presents a motion to amend the transcript of record by inserting therein a certified copy of an order in relation to a special term of court in March, 1927, of the Northern district of Oklahoma. Appellant opposes this motion on the ground that the matter sought to be added by the amendment was not before the judge in connection with the presentation of and action upon the petition involved in this appeal. Appellee contends tha,t such order “is material to the full, complete, and final adjudication. of said matter.”

There is no contention by appellee that such matter was before Judge Kenyon. We think the appeal here must be heard upon the record before Judge Kenyon, and that alone; however', upon such hearing, the court may then so form its order as to “dispose of the party as law and justice require” (USCA tit. 28, § 461) so that the real situation may appear through remand for additional evidence or otherwise. We think this motion is not well taken at this time, for the above reason, and that it should be and it is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant petitioned for and was refused a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Kenyon, from which order of denial he has appealed. The appellee presents a motion to amend the transcript of record by inserting therein a certified copy of an order in relation to a special term of court in March, 1927, of the Northern district of Oklahoma. Appellant opposes this motion on the ground that the matter sought to be added by the amendment was not before the judge in connection with the presentation of and action upon the petition involved in this appeal. Appellee contends tha,t such order “is material to the full, complete, and final adjudication. of said matter.”

There is no contention by appellee that such matter was before Judge Kenyon. We think the appeal here must be heard upon the record before Judge Kenyon, and that alone; however', upon such hearing, the court may then so form its order as to “dispose of the party as law and justice require” (USCA tit. 28, § 461) so that the real situation may appear through remand for additional evidence or otherwise. We think this motion is not well taken at this time, for the above reason, and that it should be and it is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F.2d 523, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-united-states-ca8-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack