Robert Schoop v. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States

D.C. Circuit

Robert Schoop v. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States

444 F.2d 863, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 405, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12265

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1971

Docket24789_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 444 F.2d 863 (Robert Schoop v. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the 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

Robert Schoop v. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States, 444 F.2d 863, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 405, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12265 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellants’ motion for (1) injunction pending appeal, (2) summary reversal, and (3) immediate hearing, of the motion of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to dismiss appeal as moot or for summary affirmance, of the motion of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to dismiss appeal for mootness or for summary affirmance, the opposition of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to motion of appellant for injunction pending appeal and for summary reversal, and of the opposition of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to motion for injunction pending appeal and summary reversal, and it appearing to the Court that appellant Sehoop has not submitted to federal custody, as this Court’s opinion in Dawkins v. Mitchell, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 437 F.2d 646 (1970), requires him to do in order to obtain adjudication of his claims, and that the warrant for the arrest of appellant Dawkins for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (1964) has been dismissed, it is

Ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Schoop’s action is summarily affirmed, and it is

Further ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Dawkins’ action is vacated and this case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Dawkins’ action as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellants’ motion for (1) injunction pending appeal, (2) summary reversal, and (3) immediate hearing, of the motion of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to dismiss appeal as moot or for summary affirmance, of the motion of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to dismiss appeal for mootness or for summary affirmance, the opposition of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to motion of appellant for injunction pending appeal and for summary reversal, and of the opposition of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to motion for injunction pending appeal and summary reversal, and it appearing to the Court that appellant Sehoop has not submitted to federal custody, as this Court’s opinion in Dawkins v. Mitchell, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 437 F.2d 646 (1970), requires him to do in order to obtain adjudication of his claims, and that the warrant for the arrest of appellant Dawkins for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (1964) has been dismissed, it is

Ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Schoop’s action is summarily affirmed, and it is

Further ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Dawkins’ action is vacated and this case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Dawkins’ action as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F.2d 863, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 405, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-schoop-v-john-n-mitchell-attorney-general-of-the-united-states-cadc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack