Taylor v. Steele

Eighth Circuit

Taylor v. Steele

194 F.2d 864

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1952

Docket14526

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 194 F.2d 864 (Taylor v. Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Steele, 194 F.2d 864 (8th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the record in this case has convinced this court that this appeal prosecuted in forma pauperis is frivolous, Garcia v. Steele, 8 Cir., 193 F.2d 276, 278-279, Williams v. Steele, 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 32, arid that the appellant’s application for the appointment of counsel to represent him should have been denied.

A Court of Appeals will not appoint counsel for an indigent appellant unless it appears that his appeal has merit. Gargano v. United States, 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 118; Application of Taylor, 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 1018; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 135 F.2d 919; Ligare v. Plarries, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 582. See also Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 45, 35 S.Ct. 236, 59 L.Ed. 457; Gilmore v. United States, 8 Cir., 131 F.2d 873, 874.

The order of this court entered February 15, 1952, appointing counsel for the appellant is vacated and the appeal is dismissed upon the ground that it is frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915, Title 28 U.S.C.A.

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

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the record in this case has convinced this court that this appeal prosecuted in forma pauperis is frivolous, Garcia v. Steele, 8 Cir., 193 F.2d 276, 278-279, Williams v. Steele, 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 32, arid that the appellant’s application for the appointment of counsel to represent him should have been denied.

A Court of Appeals will not appoint counsel for an indigent appellant unless it appears that his appeal has merit. Gargano v. United States, 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 118; Application of Taylor, 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 1018; Kelly v. United States, 9 Cir., 135 F.2d 919; Ligare v. Plarries, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 582. See also Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 45, 35 S.Ct. 236, 59 L.Ed. 457; Gilmore v. United States, 8 Cir., 131 F.2d 873, 874.

The order of this court entered February 15, 1952, appointing counsel for the appellant is vacated and the appeal is dismissed upon the ground that it is frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915, Title 28 U.S.C.A.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-steele-ca8-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack