Legal Opinion
Rosendahl v. Nixon
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided January 14, 2010No. 09-7088PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGMENT
2Per curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for appointment of counsel and the request to file brief and appendix electronically, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of…
3Cases cited7 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Yamaha Corporation of America v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Brown v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by14 opinions
- Cornish v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Williams v. FanningDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Patock v. U.S. Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Arunachalam v. International Business MacHines CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Chichakli v. ObamaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.