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.
David DELLARI, Appellant, v. W. I. BIDDLE, as Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., Appellee, 1925 — 5 F.2d 21 · caselaw · US
General
David DELLARI, Appellant, v. W. I. BIDDLE, as Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., Appellee
5 F.2d 21·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1925
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
David DELLARI, Appellant, v. W. I. BIDDLE, as Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 8, 1925.)
No. 6764.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. '
Frans E. Lindquist, of Kansas City, Mo., and John B. Boddie, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Al. F. Williams, U. S. Atty., and Alton H. Skinner, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before SANBORN and STONE, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — SANBORN, Circuit Judge.]
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The appeal in this ease is from an order of dismissal of the petition of appellant for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to warrant the court below in granting it.
The questions in this case were the same as those treated in No. 6765, Harry Franklin v. W. I. Biddle, as Warden, etc., 5 F.(2d) 19. They were submitted for decision on the same briefs, and the order of dismissal in this case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion in that ease, which is filed herewith.