Legal Opinion
Schenk v. Plummer
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 19, 1940No. 9481PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, claiming he is- before this court because he has been allowed by the tnal court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, moves this court for an order appointing counsel to represent him on appeal. He is held under process of state court. The question raised involves an interpretation of the applicable state law.
No certificate of probable cause for the appeal has been obtained as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 466. Such a certificate was essential to the jurisdiction of this court on appeal before the new rules were adopted. Rules of Civil Procedure in' the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kreuter v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
- Wilson v. LanaganCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935
- Ex parte DeatherageCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Genna v. FrazierCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1928
- Ex parte CowenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hector Santiago Salgado v. Rosie B. Garcia, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- In re TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- Mason v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Millslagle v. OlsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Schenk v. PlummerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940