The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More536 F.2d 1023, Andre Roger GILBERT, Petitioner, v.Ward E. MURPHY, acting Warden, Maine State Prison and theState of Maine, Respondents. In State v. Stackpole, 349 A.2d 185 (Me.1975), the trial judge, in a pre-Wilbur trial, had given the old instruction that the defendant must prove heat of passion.
536 F.2d 967, John D. MILLER, Petitioner, v.Frank HALL et al., United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. There is no indication that petitioner will not be able to raise this issue in state court, either by injecting it into his pending appeal, or through state postconviction procedures.
, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit., John E. Hoffman, Jr., New York City (Shearman Sterling, Herman E. Compter, Frederick A. Gertz, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants. This appeal is from the order of Judge Frankel which granted defendants' motion.
551 F.2d 300, Lincoln First Bank of Rochester, Appeal of, No. 76-5021, 76-5022, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 10/28/76, 1, W.D.N.Y., APPEAL DISMISSED
544 F.2d 516, Blumv.First National Holding CorporationHC*#, No. 76-2573, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 12/7/76, 1, N.D.Ga. Rule 18, 5 Cir. see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al. see NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir.
546 F.2d 414, Brown University In Providence In State of Rhode Island, In re, No. 76-1521, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 12/8/76, 1, D.R.I., MANDAMUS DENIED
546 F.2d 414, Partington, In re, No. 76-1520, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 12/27/76, 1, D.Mass., MANDAMUS DENIED
546 F.2d 414, N. L. R. B.v.Hampden Sheet Metal Workers, Inc., No. 76-1504, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 11/24/76, 1, N.L.R.B., CONSENT DECREE OF ENFORCEMENt
542 F.2d 1163, U. S.v.Sheehan, No. 76-1484, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 7/13/76, 1, D.Mass., AFFIRMED
546 F.2d 414, Fontenatv.U. S., No. 76-1442, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 12/20/76, 1, D.R.I., AFFIRMED
542 F.2d 1163, U. S.v.Dones, No. 76-1441, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 9/17/76, 1, D.Mass., REMANDED
542 F.2d 1163, Pacev.Kennedy, No. 76-1428, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 9/24/76, 1, D.Mass., AFFIRMED
546 F.2d 414, Costav.U. S., No. 76-1424, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 12/29/76, 1, D.Mass., AFFIRMED
546 F.2d 413, Roquev.People of Puerto Rico, Superior Court, Humacao Part, No. 76-1409, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 11/15/76, 1, D.P.R., REMANDED
After petitioner filed his motion for bail in the district court but before the court's order admitting him to bail, petitioner at long last received a copy of the transcript, and the appeal from his conviction is now pending before the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. case remanded.
546 F.2d 413, Lyonsv.Fagan, No. 76-1404, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 10/18/76, 1, D.Mass., AFFIRMED
545 F.2d 761, 12 Empl. She was 25 years old. On the other hand, the court's independent judgment as to the impact and propriety of plaintiff's dress does not amount to a finding that defendants' objections to the length were irrational in the context of school administration concerns.
545 F.2d 1306, Jimmy J. ST. PIERRE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Raymond J. HELGEMOE, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, Defendant, Appellee. It created a new section 2244(b), to govern the habeas applications of state prisoners; 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971); Sanders, supra, 373 U.S. at 16, 83 S.Ct.
547 F.2d 45, 77-1 USTC P 9104, Bonnie and Curry FIRST, Petitioners-Appellants, v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction and assessed a deficiency against them for $469.93. 2925, 41 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1974)
546 F.2d 459, Sebastian SCOLA, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.BOAT FRANCES R., INC., Defendant, Appellant. If this motion, which was based on the effect of the state court judgment, should have been granted, defendant did not, after its denial, lose its rights by defending itself on the merits.
