Application of Melville C. Williams, for Writ of Mandamus
Application of Melville C. WILLIAMS, for Writ of Mandamus
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William Denman (author), Jess E. Stephens, Homer T. Bone
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Williams seeks the writ of mandamus to restore to him the right to continue as temporarily a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in the case of Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., et al. His clients, Sunkist Growers, Inc., Exchange Lemon Products Company and Exchange Orange Products Company seek to intervene to assert their interests.
It appears from the affidavits of his clients that they do not intend to have Williams conduct the trial of the litigation but that they will be represented by other counsel, duly admitted therefor.
*728 The attorneys actually having the trial of the case may have Williams sit with them as advisor, as would any nonadmit-ted law clerk or secretary.
It would appear that the matter is one de minimis presenting merely a moot question not appropriate for a writ of mandamus. See Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 1953, 346 U.S. 379, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 1943, 319 U.S. 21, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185; Jewell v. Davies, 6 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 670, certiorari denied 1952, 343 U.S. 904, 72 S.Ct. 635, 96 L.Ed. 1323; State of California v. United States District Court, 9 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 818.
The petition for the writ of mandamus is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- California v. United States District Court Nos. 14243, 14244, 14284 · 1954-06-03