United States v. Hardy

Second Circuit

United States v. Hardy

252 F.2d 780

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1958

DocketNo. 169, Docket 24792

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 F.2d 780 (United States v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hardy, 252 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Cashin, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 208. As to appellant’s claim of ineffective legal representation before sentence in that his counsel refused to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we also point out that a direct appeal does not lie from the denial of such a motion made after indictment. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 404, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Cashin, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 208. As to appellant’s claim of ineffective legal representation before sentence in that his counsel refused to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we also point out that a direct appeal does not lie from the denial of such a motion made after indictment. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 404, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F.2d 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hardy-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack