Legal Opinion

Patrick B. Paddock v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 20, 1962No. 1169_1PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant has moved for leave to apply to the District Court for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to this court in forma pauperis.

The procedure which this court prefers to follow in cases in which appellant desires to move for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is pointed out in orders entered in Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 294 F.2d 771, on August 31 and September 14, 1961. Motion for new trial should be filed in the District Court. Motion should then be made to this court to remand the matter to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. L. M. Smith and Earl C. Corey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. Robert A. Frame, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
  2. The People of the Territory of Guam v. Bobby G. InglettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  3. United States v. James SmithCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
  4. United States v. Juan Conrad HolmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  5. Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Peterson Products of San Mateo, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API