Robert W. Duckett v. William F. Steiner, Warden, Maryland House of Corr., 332 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Robert W. Duckett v. William F. Steiner, Warden, Maryland House of Corr., 332 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Flowers v. Board of Professional Responsibility (tenn, 2010-06-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Flowers v. Board of Professional Responsibility
Tenn. · 2010 · confidence medium
In re Bithoney, 486 F.2d at 322 n. 1 (quoting G ullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178, 179 (4th Cir.1964)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Samuel A. Bithoney
1st Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
As pointed out by the court in Gullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178, 179 (4th Cir. 1964) : “While we must be careful to assure that the courts are always open to complaining parties, we have an equal obligation to see that its processes are not abused by harassing, or by recklessly invoking court action in frivolous causes or by foot dragging and delaying in order to deny or postpone the enjoyment of unquestioned rights.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Habib v. Keats
D.C. · 1972 · confidence medium
Gullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178, 179 (4th Cir. 1964). 8 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gullo v. Hirst
D.C. · 1965 · confidence medium
Lawyers have an obligation as officers of the court not to indulge in any of these *664 practices.” Gullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178, 179 (4th Cir. 1964).
cited Cited "see" Blair v. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178 (4 Cir.1964).
cited Cited "see" Petway v. Stallings
E.D.N.C. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Duckett v. Steiner, 224 F.Supp. 786 (D.Md. 1963), affirmed in 332 F.2d 178 (4th Cir., 1964).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cherry v. Cherry
D. Maryland · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Gullo v. Hirst, 332 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert W. DUCKETT, Appellant,
v.
William F. STEINER, Warden, Maryland House of Correction, Appellee
9332_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 28, 1964.
332 F.2d 178
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Duckett appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. That court accepted the detailed findings of fact made by a state j'udge after a two-day hearing in a state post-conviction proceeding. The petitioner’s claim that the prosecuting attorney had knowingly used perjured testimony was carefully considered in the state proceeding at which petitioner was represented by counsel and called a numher of witnesses. The claim was found to be without merit.

We agree with the District Court’s holding that the state post-conviction proceeding clearly met the tests set out in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). The petitioner received a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the same issue now being asserted in the federal courts, and his claim of perjured testimony was shown to be without substance. Under the circumstances a federal hearing is unnecessary because “the state-court trier of fact has after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts.” 372 U.S. at 312, 83 S.Ct. at 757.

Accordingly, no certificate of probable cause will issue and the docketed appeal will be dismissed as frivolous. Burgess v. Warden, 4 Cir., 284 F.2d 486 (1960). .

Affirmed.