gno.law

Stack v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · No. 13180 · 1951-12-07 · Published

Loretta Starvus STACK, Al Richmond, Philip Marshall Connelly, Dorothy Rosenblum Healey, Ernest Otto Fox, William Schneiderman, Carl Rude Lambert, Henry Steinberg, Oleta O'Connor Yates, Rose Chernin Kusnitz, Mary Bernadette Doyle, and Albert Jason Lima v. United States

Area
civil
Panel
Homer T. Bone (author), William E. Orr, Clifton Mathews

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.

The order denying the motion of appellants to reduce the bail of $50,000.00 is reversed. The case is remanded and the district court ordered to enter orders as follows :

For each of the appealing defendants Loretta Starvus Stack William Schneiderman Albert Jason Lima Carl Rude Lambert Oleta O’Connor Yates Henry Steinberg Mary Bernadette Doyle an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $10,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the District Court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.

For each of the following appealing defendants Al Richmond Philip Marshall Connelly Dorothy Rosenblum Healey Rose Chernin Kusnitz Ernest Otto Fox an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $5,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the district court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.

WILLIAM DENMAN Chief Judge ALBERT LEE STEPHENS Circuit Judge WILLIAM HEALY Circuit Judge WALTER L. POPE Circuit Judge

Dissent — Mathews

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, United States v. Schneiderman, D.C.S.D.Cal., 102 F.Supp. 52, the District Court’s order should be affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by