Russell L. Hayes v. United States, 325 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Russell L. Hayes v. United States, 325 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Larsen v. International Business Machines Corp. (paed, 1980-07-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Larsen v. International Business Machines Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Taggart v. Vermont Transportation Company, 32 F.R.D. 587 (E.D.Pa.1963), aff’d., 325 F.2d 1022 (3 Cir. 1964); Pakech v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 69 F.R.D. 534 (E.D.Pa.1976).
cited Cited "see" Douglas F. Warner v. Donat Rossignol
1st Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Taggart v. Vermont Transportation Co., 32 F.R.D. 587, 588 (E.D.Pa.1963), aff’d, 325 F.2d 1022 (3d Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Russell L. HAYES, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20573.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 9, 1964.
325 F.2d 1022
Russell L. Hayes, pro se., Carl Walker, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Hutcheson, Brown, Simpson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to our decision of November 1, 1963, the United States filed a Suggestion of Mootness which informs this Court that Russell L. Hayes, Appellant, has been released from confinement at the Federal Correctional Institution by[*1023] reason of the completion of his sentence. The Suggestion sets forth these facts:

“The Appellant Hayes had previously been released by reason of accumulated credits under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4161-64. He was thereafter recommitted as a violator of the conditions of his release. At time of recommittal he had remaining to serve 584 days. He thereafter served 425 days and accumulated further credits during his second incarceration of 153 days. He was allowed in addition 6 days exemplary good time and therefore released within 180 days of the expiration of his full sentence as originally adjudged. For this reason, he was released without parole supervision and without any other form of restraint, supervision, or control.”

We think it inappropriate for us initially to determine either the factual accuracy of the claim of mootness or its legal significance in a proceeding seeking the particular relief requested by this § 2255 petition. But on the remand heretofore ordered, the District Court is free to, and should, determine the claim and take whatever action might be legally appropriate. This course may be especially advisable since, if factually and legally supported, an ultimate dismissal of this cause for mootness may make it unnecessary to determine the substantive issues raised in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

Enter.