Lucas v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Lucas v. United States

201 F.2d 182, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 278, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1952

Docket11582_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 201 F.2d 182 (Lucas v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lucas v. United States, 201 F.2d 182, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 278, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed in the District Court a motion to stay grand jury proceedings. He said that on September 24, 1952, he appeared for a preliminary hearing before a judge in the Municipal Court, sitting as a committing magistrate. He was charged by information with committing assault with a dangerous weapon. Upon the •Government’s request, and without objection, a continuance until October 8th was granted, because one of the complaining witnesses was in the hospital. On October 7th, by agreement, the hearing was continued until October 31st. In his motion appellant further said that the matter was scheduled for presentation to the grand jury on October 13th. He said that should the grand jury indict -him he would be deprived of his right to the preliminary hearing, a substantial right. The District Court denied his motion, 13 F.R.D. 177, and he appealed. We find no error. 1 The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, .affirmed.

Addendum

Nov. 5, 1952.

The attention of the court has been directed to a procedural point not considered in the opinion heretofore filed in this cause. Appellant titled his motion in the District Court as though in a criminal proceeding — “The United States of America v. Rocco A. Colandero, et al., Grand Jury No. 1560-52.” Thus viewed, the order denying it was clearly interlocutory and was not appealable. If the action he treated as a civil action for mandamus or prohibition, as was the case in James v. Lawrence, supra, the District Court had n'o jurisdiction, since the action was brought against the sovereign United States. The practical result is the same in either event, so far as appellant is concerned. We think it better to cast the order of this court in the form in which appellant cast his action. Therefore, our order affirming the District Court judgment will be vacated and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. James v. Lawrence, 1949, 84 U.S.App. D.C. 355, 176 F.2d 18.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed in the District Court a motion to stay grand jury proceedings. He said that on September 24, 1952, he appeared for a preliminary hearing before a judge in the Municipal Court, sitting as a committing magistrate. He was charged by information with committing assault with a dangerous weapon. Upon the •Government’s request, and without objection, a continuance until October 8th was granted, because one of the complaining witnesses was in the hospital. On October 7th, by agreement, the hearing was continued until October 31st. In his motion appellant further said that the matter was scheduled for presentation to the grand jury on October 13th. He said that should the grand jury indict -him he would be deprived of his right to the preliminary hearing, a substantial right. The District Court denied his motion, 13 F.R.D. 177, and he appealed. We find no error. 1 The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, .affirmed.

Addendum

Nov. 5, 1952.

The attention of the court has been directed to a procedural point not considered in the opinion heretofore filed in this cause. Appellant titled his motion in the District Court as though in a criminal proceeding — “The United States of America v. Rocco A. Colandero, et al., Grand Jury No. 1560-52.” Thus viewed, the order denying it was clearly interlocutory and was not appealable. If the action he treated as a civil action for mandamus or prohibition, as was the case in James v. Lawrence, supra, the District Court had n'o jurisdiction, since the action was brought against the sovereign United States. The practical result is the same in either event, so far as appellant is concerned. We think it better to cast the order of this court in the form in which appellant cast his action. Therefore, our order affirming the District Court judgment will be vacated and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. James v. Lawrence, 1949, 84 U.S.App. D.C. 355, 176 F.2d 18.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F.2d 182, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 278, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack