Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

445 F.2d 856

Docket Nos. 25919, 25953.

William Ellhamer, and v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Charles Hinnington, and v. Department of Corrections, Etc.

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • William ELLHAMER, Plaintiff andv.Lawrence E. WILSON
  • Charles HINNINGTON, Plaintiff andv.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, etc., et al

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-07-07

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 1978

18 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

4 counsel of record

Relies on Mead v. California Adult Authority · United States v. Shea · Lincoln v. California Adult Authority

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1971-07-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

James B. Cuneo, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., John T. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

John H. Colteaux (argued), of Ackeret & Colteaux, San Rafael, Cal., for appellee, William Ellhamer.

Alice Daniel, William B. Turner, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae.

Emil Eisenhardt (argued), James L. Browning, U.S. Atty., David R. Urdan, Chief Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee, Charles Hinnington.

Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and von der HEYDT, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The orders granting writs of habeas corpus to Ellhamer and Hinnington, California state prisoners, are reversed. The district court will enter orders denying the writs.

¶2

We are asked to overrule our cases which have upheld California in not providing counsel on parole revocation hearings. This we decline to do. See High Pine v. Montana, 9 Cir., 439 F.2d 1093; Lincoln v. California Adult Authority, 9 Cir., 435 F.2d 133; Mead v. California Adult Authority, 9 Cir., 415 F.2d 767.

/445/f2d/856 · .json · Public domain