U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Milton Leo Mallory v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 19, 1958 · Miller, Bazelon, Madden, Claims

259 F.2d 801; 104 U.S. App. D.C. 71; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4786 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. E. Lewis Ferrell, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thurman L. Dodson, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher and Thomas A. Flannery, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Owens v. United States (D.C. 1996)
United States v. Willie Decoster, Jr., (Decoster Iii) (D.C. Cir. 1979)
United States v. Lawrence Daniel Caldwell, A/K/A Thomas E. Morgan, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Eros A. Timm, (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1976)
District of Columbia v. Mark Grimes (D.C. Cir. 1968)
United States v. Richard Becker and Jack Eisen (2d Cir. 1972)
United States v. Mainello (District Court, E.D. New York 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On March 31, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. -, 259 F.2d 796, a division of this court composed of Judges Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller and Bazelon, with the latter dissenting, filed an opinion denying appellant’s motion to remand to the United States District Court for further consideration under Andrew Mallory v. United States, 1 and dissolving a previous rule to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated because of that opinion by the Supreme Court. An or-^er ^at e®ec* was entered,

The ease has been briefed and argued on the merits and is before the present slightly different panel of judges for de-cisión. The essential arguments for reversal now presented were considered by the previous panel and decided by it adversely to appellant,

We are agreed that the opinion of March 31, 1958, is dispositive of the *802 merits here. It is an informal but generally accepted rule of this court that a recent opinion of a division may not be overruled by another panel of judges, but only by the full bench. Because of that rule, the present division could not overturn the decision of the previous panel, even if it were disposed to do so.

Affirmed.

. 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.