Legal Opinion
Campbell v. Blodgett
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 4, 1993No. 92-37024PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
I
Jurisdiction.
In opposition to Campbell’s motion in the district court, Respondents (hereinafter the State) argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because the filing of the notice of appeal in the underlying case1 divested the district court of jurisdiction over all claims in this matter. The State does not renew this argument on appeal. Nevertheless, we must consider our own jurisdiction, which hinges on that of the district court.
Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases permits habeas petitioners to use the discovery procedures available under the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harris v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Richard A. Ash, on Behalf of Himself, and on Behalf of Bethelehem Steel Corporation v. Stewart S. Cort, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, NominalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- In Re Crateo, Inc., Bankrupt. Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Campbell v. BlodgettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
3Cited by32 opinions
- Lawrence S. Bittaker v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, California State Prison of San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Stephen Christian, A/K/A Stephen Cline v. William RhodeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Clark v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Arthur Calderon, Warden v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-Party-In-InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Darrell Keith Rich v. Arthur Calderon, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.