James Walter Meadows v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Walter Meadows v. United States

339 F.2d 206

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1964

Docket21130_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 339 F.2d 206 (James Walter Meadows v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Walter Meadows v. United States, 339 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge erred in denying his mid-trial motion for a continuance. The critical facts are that the motion does not comply with F.R.Civ.P. 17(b); the purpose of the motion was to offer testimony impeaching a Government witness on an immaterial point; and, during the trial, the appellant offered no testimony. We hold that the trial court was well within sound judicial discretion in denying the motion. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial judge erred in denying his mid-trial motion for a continuance. The critical facts are that the motion does not comply with F.R.Civ.P. 17(b); the purpose of the motion was to offer testimony impeaching a Government witness on an immaterial point; and, during the trial, the appellant offered no testimony. We hold that the trial court was well within sound judicial discretion in denying the motion. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 F.2d 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-walter-meadows-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack