General
Dennis H. CRONIN, U. S. Marshal for the District of Nebraska, et al., Appellants, v. Fred TOTORO, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. E. E. McVICKER, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Charlie MITCHELL, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Elmer E. MacNALLEY, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Alfio ROBINO, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. John SURRA, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Albert WESTON, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Sam CATINA, Appellee; SAME, Appellants, v. Tony CANTONI, Appellee
11 F.2d 140·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1926
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
Dennis H. CRONIN, U. S. Marshal for the District of Nebraska, et al., Appellants, v. Fred TOTORO, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. E. E. McVICKER, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Charlie MITCHELL, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Elmer E. MacNALLEY, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Alfio ROBINO, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. John SURRA, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Albert WESTON, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Sam CATINA, Appellee. SAME, Appellants, v. Tony CANTONI, Appellee.
No. 6915.
No. 6923.
No. 6935.
No. 6936.
No. 6942.
No. 6945.
No. 6946.
No. 6949.
No. 6953.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
January 30, 1926.)
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
James C. Kinsler, U. S. Atty., of Omaha, Neb., Ambrose C. Epperson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Clay Center, Neb., and George A. Keyser and Andrew C. Scott, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Omaha, Neb., for appellants.
Raymond T. Coffey and John D. Wear, both of Omaha, Neb., for appellees in Nos. 6915, 6945, and 6946.
Raymond T. Coffey, of Omaha, Neb., for appellee in No. 6942.
Before KENYON and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and AMID ON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The decision of this court in No. 6921, Dennis H. Cronin, United States Marshal for the District of Nebraska et al. v. William J. Fox, 11 F.(2d) 139 (opinion this day filed) is determinative of the questions involved in each of these eases. The order in each ease sustaining the application for writ of habeas corpus and discharging the prisoner from custody and imprisonment is reversed, and each cause is remanded to the District Court, with instructions to vacate the order in each case sustaining the writ, discharge the same, and remand the prisoner to the custody of the appellants or their successors in office.
Reversed and remanded. •