United States of America Ex Rel. Edgar I. Shott, Jr., Relator-Appellant v. Dan Tehan, Sheriff of Hamilton County

390 F.2d 185, 16 Ohio Misc. 253, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 422, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7923
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 28, 1968
Docket18042_1
StatusPublished

This text of 390 F.2d 185 (United States of America Ex Rel. Edgar I. Shott, Jr., Relator-Appellant v. Dan Tehan, Sheriff of Hamilton County) 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
United States of America Ex Rel. Edgar I. Shott, Jr., Relator-Appellant v. Dan Tehan, Sheriff of Hamilton County, 390 F.2d 185, 16 Ohio Misc. 253, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 422, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7923 (6th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial by the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of appellant’s second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner contends that when this court reversed the denial of the first petition for habeas corpus (United States ex rel. Shott v. Tehan, 337 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1964)) and ordered the District Court to grant same, the order entered thereunder by the District Court effectively terminated the jurisdiction of the federal courts over the petitioner. The record shows, however, that in due course of authorized appellate procedure, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in relation to this court’s decision cited above and reversed same. Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L. *186 Ed.2d 453 (1966). This reversal nullified the effect of the prior orders of both this court and the District Court which had been entered in pursuance of the Sixth Circuit opinion. Eagles v. United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 U.S. 304, 67 S.Ct. 313, 91 L.Ed. 308 (1946).

On appellant’s second issue the District Court held that appellant’s complaints about prejudicial publicity did not come within the rule of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). We agree.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Eagles v. United States Ex Rel. Samuels
329 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Tehan v. United States Ex Rel. Shott
382 U.S. 406 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Sheppard v. Maxwell
384 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott
382 U.S. 406 (Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 F.2d 185, 16 Ohio Misc. 253, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 422, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-edgar-i-shott-jr-relator-appellant-v-ca6-1968.