Legal Opinion
In Re: Ernie Roe
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 24, 2001No. 01-70967PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001)
In re: ERNIE ROE,
Warden ERNIE ROE, Warden, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
GLEN NICKERSON, JR., Real Party in Interest.
No. 01-70967
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Submitted June 15, 2001* San Francisco, California
Order filed June 15, 2001
Order withdrawn July 24, 2001
Filed July 24, 2001
Gregory A. Ott, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner.
M. Gerald Schwartzbach, Mill Valley, California, and Edward M. Sousa, San Jose, California, for the real party in…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Will v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Holly W. BAUMAN Et Al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, Union Oil Company, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Salvatore Joseph Marino v. Dan Vasquez, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Johnston v. MarshCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'NEAL v. LampertDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2002
- (HC) Fields v. California Department of CorrectionsDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Doe v. BarrDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020