Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Capital Service, Inc. et al. v. United States District Court for Southern Dist. of California, Central Division, et al
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 198 F.2d 18
June 24, 1952
Hill, Farrer & Burrill and Hyman Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Hackler, Chief Law Officer, 21st Region, Los Angeles, Cal., Norton J. Come, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., in opposition of NLRB to motion for mandamus of petitioners.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner moves this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to convene a three-judge district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 for hearing Case No. 14142 HW in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which is a suit for injunction brought by the National Labor Relations Board against the petitioner here.
It appears that a final judgment was entered on June 2, 1952, in Case No. 14142 HW and that an appeal from that judgment, with petitioner here as appellant, is now pending in this court, 198 F.2d 20.
Since the issue concerning the use of a three-judge court may be raised in the pending appeal, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185.