Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
W. I. BIDDLE, Warden, etc., Appellant, v. Vuco PEROVICH, 1927 — 21 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
General
W. I. BIDDLE, Warden, etc., Appellant, v. Vuco PEROVICH
21 F.2d 1010·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
W. I. BIDDLE, Warden, etc., Appellant, v. Vuco PEROVICH.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
August 30, 1927.
No. 7410.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.
Reversing judgment 9 F.(2d) 124. See, also, 274 U. S. 480, 47 Sup. Ct. 664, 71 L. Ed.-.
Al F. Williams, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., for appellant.
George T. McDermott, of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Reversed, without costs to either party in this court, and remanded, with directions to dismiss writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice, per stipulation of parties.