U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1971

Robert Schoop v. John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 22, 1971 · Wright, Robb, Wilk-Ey

444 F.2d 863; 143 U.S. App. D.C. 405; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12265 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Landon G. Dowdey, Washington, D. C., was on the motion for injunction pending appeal, summary reversal, and immediate hearing for appellants., Messrs. C. Francis Murphy, Acting Corporation Counsel at the time the opposition was filed, and Richard W. Barton and David P. Sutton, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the opposition to the motion for injunction pending appeal and summary reversal, for appellee Wilson; and on the motion of appellee Wilson to dismiss appeal as moot or for summary affirmance., Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. and summary reversal for appellee Wil-Atty., and John A. Terry, Joseph M. Han-non and Nathan Dodell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the opposition to the motion for injunction pending appeal or summary reversal for appellees Mitchell and Hoover; and on the motion of ap-pellees Mitchell and Hoover to dismiss appeal for mootness or for summary af-firmance.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Anna Masszonia v. Walter E. Washington (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Earnest Bach and Robert Pryor v. Joseph S. Coughlin (7th Cir. 1974)
Richard Weaver v. United Mine Workers of America, W. A. Boyle v. Richard Weaver (D.C. Cir. 1973)

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 appellants’ motion for (1) injunction pending appeal, (2) summary reversal, and (3) immediate hearing, of the motion of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to dismiss appeal as moot or for summary affirmance, of the motion of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to dismiss appeal for mootness or for summary affirmance, the opposition of appellee Jerry V. Wilson to motion of appellant for injunction pending appeal and for summary reversal, and of the opposition of appellees Mitchell and Hoover to motion for injunction pending appeal and summary reversal, and it appearing to the Court that appellant Sehoop has not submitted to federal custody, as this Court’s opinion in Dawkins v. Mitchell, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 437 F.2d 646 (1970), requires him to do in order to obtain adjudication of his claims, and that the warrant for the arrest of appellant Dawkins for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (1964) has been dismissed, it is

Ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Schoop’s action is summarily affirmed, and it is

Further ordered by the Court that the dismissal of appellant Dawkins’ action is vacated and this case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Dawkins’ action as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969).

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