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
Louis E. Wolfson and Elkin B. Gerbert, Petitioners, v. Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 394 F.2d 7
Argued May 1, 1968 Decided May 2, 1968
William O. Bittman, Austin S. Mittler, Hogan & Hartson, Edgar H. Brenner, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D. C., Chester Bedell, Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar & Smith, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendants-appellants, Wolfson and Gerbert.
Paul R. Grand, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for appellee, United States.
Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition having been filed herein by counsel for the petitioners and argument having been had thereon,
Upon consideration thereof, it is
Ordered that said petition be and it hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In United States v. Simon, 2 Cir., 393 F.2d 90, cited as a precedent for the relief sought here, the court had the power to issue a writ of mandamus (although it never became necessary for the court to do so because the district judge complied with the court's suggestion that he voluntarily recuse himself), since that application was accompanied by an affidavit of bias and prejudice. No such affidavit accompanied the instant application. Accordingly we hold that we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.