Rosier v. Overholser

D.C. Circuit

Rosier v. Overholser

136 F.2d 795, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3136

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1943

DocketNo. 8475

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F.2d 795 (Rosier v. Overholser) 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

Rosier v. Overholser, 136 F.2d 795, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3136 (D.C. Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus; discharging the writ theretofore issued; and remanding appellant to the custody of appellee. The District Court found that appellant, while still serving his sentence, following conviction of an assault with a dangerous weapon, was, in a lunacy proceeding in that Court, found by a jury to be of unsound mind; that he continues to be of unsound mind and is in need of continued hospitalization. It concluded that appellant’s commitment was authorized by law, and regular on its face; that appellant is not entitled to be released from custody. The judgment of the District Court was correct; and is affirmed, for the reasons appearing in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus; discharging the writ theretofore issued; and remanding appellant to the custody of appellee. The District Court found that appellant, while still serving his sentence, following conviction of an assault with a dangerous weapon, was, in a lunacy proceeding in that Court, found by a jury to be of unsound mind; that he continues to be of unsound mind and is in need of continued hospitalization. It concluded that appellant’s commitment was authorized by law, and regular on its face; that appellant is not entitled to be released from custody. The judgment of the District Court was correct; and is affirmed, for the reasons appearing in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F.2d 795, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 404, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosier-v-overholser-cadc-1943.