Richardson v. Zuppann

Third Circuit

Richardson v. Zuppann

174 F.2d 829, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2287

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 1949

DocketNo. 9898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 174 F.2d 829 (Richardson v. Zuppann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. Zuppann, 174 F.2d 829, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2287 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have examined with care the briefs and appendices of the parties in the instant case and have given due consideration to the oral arguments. The first point raised by the appellant, namely, that the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542, was conducted in such a -manner as to deprive the General Court Martial of jurisdiction of the appellant, is disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Humphrey, Warden, v. Smith, 336 U.S. 69’5, 69 S.Ct. 830. We state that this point was dealt with adequately in the opinion of Judge Follmer, 81 F.Supp. 809, as were the other three grounds raised by the appellant in the court below. We conclude that the appellant received substantial justice from the Court Martial which tried him and that his constitutional rights were not prejudiced.

Accordingly the order of the court below denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the rule to show cause will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have examined with care the briefs and appendices of the parties in the instant case and have given due consideration to the oral arguments. The first point raised by the appellant, namely, that the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542, was conducted in such a -manner as to deprive the General Court Martial of jurisdiction of the appellant, is disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Humphrey, Warden, v. Smith, 336 U.S. 69’5, 69 S.Ct. 830. We state that this point was dealt with adequately in the opinion of Judge Follmer, 81 F.Supp. 809, as were the other three grounds raised by the appellant in the court below. We conclude that the appellant received substantial justice from the Court Martial which tried him and that his constitutional rights were not prejudiced.

Accordingly the order of the court below denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the rule to show cause will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 829, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-zuppann-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack