James P. Free, Jr. v. Howard Peters, III and Neil Hartigan

44 F.3d 435
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided January 27, 1995·No. 94-3810·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of petitioner’s “EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION”, respondents’ “MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF RULE 60(b) RELIEF AND OBJECTION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION”, petitioner’s “OPPOSITION OF JAMES P. FREE, JR. TO THE STATE’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF RULE 60(b) RELIEF”, and petitioner’s “SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT FOR STAY OF EXECUTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO THE STATES’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE”,

IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s order of December 2, 1994 is SUMMARILY AFFIRMED. See Williams v. Chrans, 42 F.3d 1137 (7th Cir.1994). The motion for a stay of execution is MOOT.

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

James P. Free, Jr. v. Howard Peters, III and Neil Hartigan, 44 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 1995).

44 F.3d 435 (James P. Free, Jr. v. Howard Peters, III and Neil Hartigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related