Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Howard E. Leigh v. R. J. Gaffney, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, 436 F.2d 976, 10th Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    The court considered a motion for summary affirmance of a lower court's decision in the case of Howard E. Leigh v. R. J. Gaffney, Warden. The appellant opposed summary action. The court substituted the warden as the proper respondent since Leigh was confined at the Kansas State Penitentiary. Upon examining the case file and lower court records, the court determined that the questions presented were correctly decided by the lower court and did not warrant further argument. Therefore, the court granted the motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1970-11-11 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 436 F.2d 976 Docket: 427-70_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court considered a motion for summary affirmance of a lower court's decision in the case of Howard E. Leigh v. R. J. Gaffney, Warden. The appellant opposed summary action. The court substituted the warden as the proper respondent since Leigh was confined at the Kansas State Penitentiary. Upon examining the case file and lower court records, the court determined that the questions presented were correctly decided by the lower court and did not warrant further argument. Therefore, the court granted the motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views1 page

    Howard E. Leigh v. R. J. Gaffney, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, 436 F.2d 976, 10th Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court considered a motion for summary affirmance of a lower court's decision in the case of Howard E. Leigh v. R. J. Gaffney, Warden. The appellant opposed summary action. The court substituted the warden as the proper respondent since Leigh was confined at the Kansas State Penitentiary. Upon examining the case file and lower court records, the court determined that the questions presented were correctly decided by the lower court and did not warrant further argument. Therefore, the court granted the motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    436 F.

    2d 976

    Howard E. LEIGH, Appellant,


    v.
    R. J. GAFFNEY, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing,
    Kansas, Appellee.
    No. 427-70.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Nov. 11, 1970.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
    Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen. and Edward E. Collister, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen.,
    have filed a motion to affirm and suggestions in support of summary
    affirmance in behalf of the appellee.
    Appellant has filed a memorandum opposing summary action.
    Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR,
    District judge.
    PER CURIAM.

    Leigh was notified that the court was considering summary affirmance and he
    has taken the opportunity afforded him to file a memorandum addressing the
    merits of the cause and opposing such disposition. It is apparent from the
    record that Leigh is confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary and we have
    accordingly substituted the warden thereof as the proper respondent-appellee.
    An examination of the file and records in this cause prompts the conclusion that
    the questions presented have been correctly determined by the district court and
    that they are so unsubstantial as not to warrant further argument.

    Accordingly, the motion of appellee is granted and the judgment of the District
    Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order of the
    district court, 321 F.Supp. 195 (D.Kan., 1970).

    You might also like