William Holland v. United States
William HOLLAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- John E. Adams v. United States of America, Ernest J
- Robert Earl Williams v. United States of America, Gerald Coleman v. United States
- Soolook v. State
- United States v. Donald A. Broadhead
- United States v. Joseph Quarles, United States of America v. Calvin Percy Martin
- United States v. Laub Baking Co.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.