Hineline v. Molyneaux

Eighth Circuit

Hineline v. Molyneaux

73 F.2d 925, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2866

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1934

DocketNo. 387

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 F.2d 925 (Hineline v. Molyneaux) 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

Hineline v. Molyneaux, 73 F.2d 925, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2866 (8th Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Circuit Judge.

A careful analysis of the situation in this application for a writ of mandamus directed to Judge Molyneaux, of the District of Minnesota, convinces that the subject-matter of this controversy may bo completely covered through an appeal, and that there are no particular circumstances which require use of this extraordinary writ of mandamus to preserve the rights of the parties completely. In this situation, and without examination of the merits of the controversy, it ie our duty to deny the application for the writ. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 370, 65 L. Ed. 725; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762; Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. et al. v. Molyneaux (C. C. A.) 70 F.(2d) 545.

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

STONE, Circuit Judge.

A careful analysis of the situation in this application for a writ of mandamus directed to Judge Molyneaux, of the District of Minnesota, convinces that the subject-matter of this controversy may bo completely covered through an appeal, and that there are no particular circumstances which require use of this extraordinary writ of mandamus to preserve the rights of the parties completely. In this situation, and without examination of the merits of the controversy, it ie our duty to deny the application for the writ. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 370, 65 L. Ed. 725; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762; Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. et al. v. Molyneaux (C. C. A.) 70 F.(2d) 545.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F.2d 925, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hineline-v-molyneaux-ca8-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack