Raymond M. Hamilton v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, (Two Cases), 469 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Raymond M. Hamilton v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, (Two Cases), 469 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in Interest (ca9, 1974-08-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in Interest
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
In Hamilton v. Craven, N.D.Cal., 1971, 350 F.Supp. 1251, 1254 , aff'd, 9 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1394 , the court held that the petitioner had exhausted his remedies, and our affirmance was 'for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district judge.' (469 F.2d at 1394) In contrast, several district court opinions hold or say that the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies: Rawlins v. Craven, C.D.Cal., 1971, 329 F.Supp. 40 (dictum); Gingrich v. Oberhauser, C.D.Cal., 1969, 305 F.Supp. 738, 741 (dictum); Rogers v. Nelson, N.D.Cal., 1969, 300 F.Supp. 421, 422 ; Gardella v. Field, C.D.Cal., 1968,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Superior Court of State of California for the County of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
In Hamilton v. Craven, N.D.Cal., 1971, 350 F.Supp. 1251, 1254 , aff’d, 9 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1394 , the court held that the petitioner had exhausted his remedies, and our affirmance was “for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district judge.” (469 F.2d at 1394) In contrast, several district court opinions hold or say that the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies: Rawlins v. Craven, C.D.Cal., 1971, 329 F.Supp. 40 (dictum); Gingrich v. Oberhauser, C.D.Cal., 1969, 305 F.Supp. 738, 741 (dictum); Rogers v. Nelson, N.D.Cal., 1969, 300 F.Supp. 421, 422 ; Gardella v. Field, C.D.Cal.,…
discussed Cited "see" Miller v. Missouri
W.D. Mo. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Hamilton v. Craven, 350 F.Supp. 1251, 1253 (N.D.Cal.1971), affirmed, 469 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Wainwright, 453 F.2d 385, 386 (5th Cir. 1972); Green v. Beto, 460 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1972); Vera v. Beto, 332 F.Supp. 1197 (S.D.Tex.1971); see also, Johnson v. Wyrick, 381 F.Supp. 747 (W.D.Mo. 1974) at footnote eight.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond M. Hamilton
v.
Walter E. Craven, Warden, (Two Cases)
71-2737.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 29, 1973.
469 F.2d 1394
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

469 F.2d 1394

Raymond M. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Walter E. CRAVEN, Warden, Defendant-Appellant (two cases).

Nos. 71-2737, 71-2844.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1973.

Sanford Svetcov, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), W. Eric Collins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Emil Roy Eisenhardt (argued), Lee Van Boven, of Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, Cal., Michael E. Smith, Berkeley, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WRIGHT, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district judge. Hamilton v. Craven, 350 F.Supp. 1251 (N.D.Cal.1971). We do not reach other issues raised by appellant or by appellee on the cross-appeal.

2

Judgment affirmed.