green
Positive treatment
1.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Toolasprashad v. Grondolsky
See Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.2002) (clarifying that the fact that a civil litigant’s counsel is appointed does not eliminate judicial limitations on the litigant’s choice of counsel and citing Lee v. Crouse, 284 F.Supp. 541, 544 (D.Kan.1967), aff'd, 396 F.2d 952 (10th Cir. 1968), holding that civil litigant who had counsel appointed to him/her "is not entitled to select his counsel”); see also Fortner v. McNeil, 2008 WL 2199223 , at *2, 2008 U.S. Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Luis Marti and Lou Saks
See United States v. Garafolo, 385 F.2d 200 (7 Cir. 1967), vacated, 390 U.S. 144 , 88 S.Ct. 841 , 19 L.Ed.2d 970 (1968), rev'd on remand, 396 F.2d 952 (7 Cir. 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincent Lee
v.
Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary
v.
Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary
9667.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Apr 30, 1968.
396 F.2d 952
Published
Vincent LEE, Appellant,
v.
Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Appellee.
No. 9667.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
March 27, 1968, Rehearing Denied April 30, 1968.
Vincent Lee, pro se.
Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., and Daniel D. Metz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion. See 284 F.Supp. 541.