Ernest Harvey Olsen, and v. United States
Ernest Harvey OLSEN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The order adjudging Olsen guilty of civil contempt is affirmed.
This court’s stay of the district court’s order is terminated effective at noon, Pacific time, August 10, 1971.
Concurrence
HUFSTEDLER, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the result reached by a majority of the panel under the compulsion of In re Bacon (9th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 667 ; cf. United States v. Gelbard and United States v. Pamas (9th Cir. 1971) 443 F.2d 837 . Were the question open in this Circuit, I would hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2515 precluded a finding of contempt for reasons stated in the opinions of Judges Adams and Rosenn in In re Joques Egan (3d Cir. 1971) (en banc) [No. 71-1088, May 28, 1971] and in the opinions of Judges Bazelon and Wright in In re Evans and In re Fishlowitz (D.C. Cir. 1971) [Nos. 71-1499 & 71-1521, July 23, 1971].
I would enlarge the appellant on bail pending the filing of his petition for cer-tiorari.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
446 F.2d 912
Ernest Harvey OLSEN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
No. 71-2081.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1971.
Mark B. Raven (argued), of Risner, Wolf & Raven, Tucson, Ariz;, for petitioner-appellant.
Garvin Lee Oliver (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
The order adjudging Olsen guilty of civil contempt is affirmed.
2
This court's stay of the district court's order is terminated effective at noon, Wolf & Raven, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant.
HUFSTEDLER, Judge (concurring and dissenting):
3
I concur in the result reached by a majority of the panel under the compulsion of In re Bacon (9th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 667 ; cf. United States v. Gelbard and United States v. Parnas (9th Cir. 1971) 443 F.2d 837 . Were the question open in this Circuit, I would hold that 18 U.S.C. 2515 precluded a finding of contempt for reasons stated in the opinions of Judges Adams and Rosenn in In re Joques Egan (3d Cir. 1971) (en banc) (No. 71-1088, May 28, 1971) and in the opinions of Judges Bazelon and Wright in In re Evans and In re Fishlowitz (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Nos. 71-1499 & 71-1521, July 23, 1971).
4
I would enlarge the appellant on bail pending the filing of his petition for certiorari.
1
Bruce R. Thompson, judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.