William Emmet Dougherty v. Joseph H. Crabtree

Ninth Circuit

William Emmet Dougherty v. Joseph H. Crabtree

981 F.2d 1258, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 36566, 1992 WL 370036

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

Docket91-35733

StatusUnpublished

This text of 981 F.2d 1258 (William Emmet Dougherty v. Joseph H. Crabtree) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Emmet Dougherty v. Joseph H. Crabtree, 981 F.2d 1258, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 36566, 1992 WL 370036 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

981 F.2d 1258

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
William Emmet DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph H. CRABTREE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-35733.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 1992.
Submission Deferred Sept. 23, 1992.
Resubmitted Dec. 2, 1992.
Decided Dec. 15, 1992.

Before BEEZER, NOONAN and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER**

The district court's grant of the habeas petition was proper. Grady v. Crabtree, 958 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4

**

This order is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

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