green
Positive treatment
1.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Casselberry v. United States
See Scherk v. United States, 242 F.Supp. 445 (N.D.Cal.), aff’d, 354 F.2d 239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 882 , 86 S.Ct. 174 , 15 L.Ed.2d 122 (1965).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson v. State
See also United States v. Scherk, 177 F. Supp. 793 (N.D.Cal.1959), aff’d, Scherck v. United States, 354 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Russell T. Halliday v. United States
See also Scherk v. United States, N.D.Cal., 1965, 242 F.Supp. 445 , aff’d per curiam, 9 Cir., 354 F.2d 239 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 882 , *274 86 S.Ct. 174 , 15 L.Ed.2d 122 ; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 125 , subsequent history omitted.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peter S. SCHERCK, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20277_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 20, 1965.
354 F.2d 239
Peter S. Scherck, in pro. per., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., David R. Urdan, Jerrold Ladar, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Hamley, Browning, Foley.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM:
The motion for leave to file a petition for judgment by default is granted.
The petition for judgment by default is denied.
The order of the district court denying the motion of Peter S. Scherck to vacate and set aside the sentence in United States v. Peter S. Scherck, No. 35992, in the Northern District of California, Southern Division, is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum and order entered on June 2, 1965, reported in 242 F.Supp. 445.