Tinkoff v. Ryan
This text of 93 F.2d 1017 (Tinkoff v. Ryan) 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.
Opinion
It is ordered that the petition of appellant to extend time to file answer to the appellee’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, denied.
It is ordered that the motion of appellant for leave to file petition for contempt [1018]*1018against the respondent, John J. Ryan, and John E. Murtagh, assistant superintendent of the United States Detention Farm, Milan, Mich., be, and the same is hereby, denied.
It is ordered that the motion of the appellee to extend the time within which to file an answer to the petition for contempt be, and the same is hereby, denied.
It is ordered that the appellant’s motion for leave to file certain papers with this court, which were considered by the Honorable James C. McReynolds, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, be, and the same is hereby, denied.
On consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss this appeal for the reason that any questions tendered therein have now become moot, by reason of the release of the appellant from custody by the appellee because of completion of the sentence imposed upon the appellant, it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 F.2d 1017, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinkoff-v-ryan-ca6-1937.