U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1964

William Holland v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 18, 1964 · Bazelon, Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían, Burger, Wright, McGowan, Chambers

343 F.2d 287; 120 U.S. App. D.C. 5 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Francis C. Browne (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Jerome Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Paul A. Renne, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee., Mr. Martin R. Hoffmann, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

John E. Adams v. United States of America, Ernest J. Stuckey v. United States of America, Melvin R. Roots v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Robert Earl Williams v. United States of America, Gerald Coleman v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Soolook v. State (Alaska 1968)
William G. Holland v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Matthews v. United States (D.C. 1970)
United States v. Donald A. Broadhead (7th Cir. 1969)
United States v. Laub Baking Co. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1968)
United States v. Joseph Quarles, United States of America v. Calvin Percy Martin (4th Cir. 1967)
Roland F. Veney, Jr. v. United States of America, Howard R. Baylor v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
Commonwealth v. Meehan (Mass. 1979)
Smith v. Fair (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1973)
State v. White (N.M. 1967)

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file his lodged petition for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s aforesaid motion be granted and the Clerk is directed to file appellant’s lodged petition for rehearing en banc, and on consideration whereof, it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc. .See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C.-, 343 F.2d 233.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order in so far as it pertains to the denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s aforesaid motion and petition.

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