Matthews v. Correa

Second Circuit

Matthews v. Correa

131 F.2d 597, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2891

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 1942

DocketNo. 98

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 F.2d 597 (Matthews v. Correa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. Correa, 131 F.2d 597, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2891 (2d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from provided that the United States Attorney should “return to the defendant * * * such of the papers mentioned and described in the notice of motion herein, as he, in his sole discretion, shall deem himself not entitled to retain.” “If the defendant shall deem herself entitled to any of the papers retained” she was “given the right to again move for the turning over of said papers.” The record does not disclose what, if any, of the papers seized the United States Attorney has “retained”; and, although the appellant’s brief declares that he has in fact “retained” certain papers which it mentioned, we cannot consider the statement, for not only is it not part of the record, but the contents of the papers so retained does not sufficiently appear.

The order is not appealable because it is interlocutory; the defendant should avail herself of the leave given and should move in the district court, stating in detail the character of the papers retained, and why she is entitled to their return.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from provided that the United States Attorney should “return to the defendant * * * such of the papers mentioned and described in the notice of motion herein, as he, in his sole discretion, shall deem himself not entitled to retain.” “If the defendant shall deem herself entitled to any of the papers retained” she was “given the right to again move for the turning over of said papers.” The record does not disclose what, if any, of the papers seized the United States Attorney has “retained”; and, although the appellant’s brief declares that he has in fact “retained” certain papers which it mentioned, we cannot consider the statement, for not only is it not part of the record, but the contents of the papers so retained does not sufficiently appear.

The order is not appealable because it is interlocutory; the defendant should avail herself of the leave given and should move in the district court, stating in detail the character of the papers retained, and why she is entitled to their return.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F.2d 597, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-correa-ca2-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack