Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

282 F.2d 763

Docket No. 5745 (Original). Movant.

In re Goldfine

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 4, 1960.

First Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-10-04

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 1979

4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1960-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Edward Bennett Williams, Vincent J. Fuller, Washington, D. C., and Burton L. Williams, Boston, Mass., for movant.

¶2Elliot L. Richardson, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., intervenor, pro se.

¶3Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This court has grave doubts that it has jurisdiction under the all writs section, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to grant this motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus for the reason that issuance of the writ would not be in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, but it appearing that the petitioner has a clear remedy by motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 of which his counsel at the hearing admitted that he was fully aware but chose not to invoke, we do not regard this as an exceptional case warranting entertainment of the writ.

¶6An order will be entered denying the motion.

/282/f2d/763 · .json · Public domain