Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

338 F.2d 1004

Docket No. 7839.

Mize v. Crouse

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-12-08

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1965

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-12-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

James F. Fellingham, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Richard H. Seaton, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas (William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, on brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

It appears from the record and briefs that the matters complained of in this habeas corpus proceedings are within the cognizance of the Kansas courts, and that the petitioner is now pursuing his remedy there. See: Per Curiam order of the Supreme Court of Kansas, entered December 6, 1963. The trial Court, therefore, correctly denied the writ and the judgment is affirmed.

/338/f2d/1004 · .json · Public domain