Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

217 F.2d 62

Docket No. 14367.

Collins v. Heinze

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Nov. 22, 1954. Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1954.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-11-22

2 counsel of record

Relies on Collins v. Heinze

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1954-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 1983

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

701954196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

John Collins, Represa, Cal., in pro. per.

Edmund G. Brown Atty. Gen., of California, Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen. of California, for appellee.

Before ORR and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and YANKWICH, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, Collins v. Heinze, D.C.N.D.Cal., 125 F.Supp. 186, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. An alleged error not covered by the District Court's opinion has been presented, towit, that the District Court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to represent appellant in the presentation of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. A habeas corpus proceeding is in the nature of a civil action and, hence, there is no requirement that counsel be appointed in such a proceeding.

/217/f2d/62 · .json · Public domain