William Holland v. United States

343 F.2d 287, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 5
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 18, 1964·No. 18400·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file his lodged petition for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s aforesaid motion be granted and the Clerk is directed to file appellant’s lodged petition for rehearing en banc, and on consideration whereof, it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc. .See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C.-, 343 F.2d 233.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order in so far as it pertains to the denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s aforesaid motion and petition.

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

William Holland v. United States, 343 F.2d 287, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 5 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

343 F.2d 287 (William Holland v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Meehan
387 N.E.2d 527 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1979)
Smith v. Fair
363 F. Supp. 1021 (N.D. Ohio, 1973)
William G. Holland v. United States
444 F.2d 981 (D.C. Circuit, 1971)
Matthews v. United States
267 A.2d 826 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1970)
United States v. Donald A. Broadhead
413 F.2d 1351 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)
Soolook v. State
447 P.2d 55 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1968)
United States v. Laub Baking Co.
283 F. Supp. 217 (N.D. Ohio, 1968)
State v. White
424 P.2d 402 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)