Stewart Christopher v. W. F. Amrine, Superintendent of London Prison Farm

Sixth Circuit

Stewart Christopher v. W. F. Amrine, Superintendent of London Prison Farm

180 F.2d 169, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1950

Docket10984_1

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F.2d 169 (Stewart Christopher v. W. F. Amrine, Superintendent of London Prison Farm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stewart Christopher v. W. F. Amrine, Superintendent of London Prison Farm, 180 F.2d 169, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380 (6th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon an appeal from the order of the District Court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and it appearing that the said petition was based upon the grounds that petitioner’s rights and remedies in the state courts of Ohio, in which he was convicted, were inadequate, or lost by negligence of counsel, or not available because he is a person of indigent circumstances, and that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been denied in the lower courts of Ohio; and there being no showing that appellant’s rights and remedies in the state courts are inadequate, nor any showing that he has exhausted the remedies avail *170 able in the courts of the State of Ohio, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the District Court denying the petition for the writ of habeas corpus be and is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon an appeal from the order of the District Court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and it appearing that the said petition was based upon the grounds that petitioner’s rights and remedies in the state courts of Ohio, in which he was convicted, were inadequate, or lost by negligence of counsel, or not available because he is a person of indigent circumstances, and that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been denied in the lower courts of Ohio; and there being no showing that appellant’s rights and remedies in the state courts are inadequate, nor any showing that he has exhausted the remedies avail *170 able in the courts of the State of Ohio, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the District Court denying the petition for the writ of habeas corpus be and is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F.2d 169, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-christopher-v-w-f-amrine-superintendent-of-london-prison-farm-ca6-1950.