Willie Hullom v. Lester Burrows, Roy S. McCrimmon Horace W. Adams, Victor Beck, Don Hardy, Otto Beulow, John W. Slusser & Carl D. Mosier, 266 F.2d 547 (6th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Willie Hullom v. Lester Burrows, Roy S. McCrimmon Horace W. Adams, Victor Beck, Don Hardy, Otto Beulow, John W. Slusser & Carl D. Mosier, 266 F.2d 547 (6th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wooten v. Sturts (ohsd, 2025-05-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wooten v. Sturts
S.D. Ohio · 2025 · confidence medium
And “[t]he Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense, does not apply to civil cases.” Hullom v. Burrows, 266 F.2d 547, 548 (6th Cir. 1959).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Branch v. Finch
D. Kan. · 1970 · confidence medium
In Hullom v. Burrows, 266 F.2d 547, 548 (6th Cir. 1959), cert. den. 361 U.S. 919 , 80 S.Ct. 262 , 4 L.Ed.2d 187 , it was said: “The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense, does not apply to civil cases.” In his decision the hearing examiner stated that “ * * * claimant did not have a representative, but was fully advised by the Hearing Examiner of her right to be represented, which right was waived by the claimant.” (Record P. 5) There is no evidence in the r…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willie HULLOM, Appellant,
v.
Lester BURROWS, Roy S. McCrimmon, Horace W. Adams, Victor Beck, Don Hardy, Otto Beulow, John W. Slusser and Carl D. Mosier, Et Al., Appellees
547_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 14, 1959.
266 F.2d 547
No appearance for appellant., Paul E. Cholette, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellees.
Martin, Allen, Miller.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is the third application for relief filed by petitioner in this Court in recent months. For the factual background of the case see Hullom v. Kent, District Judge, 6 Cir., 262 F.2d 862. See also: Hullom v. Ziel, Clerk, 6 Cir., 266 F.2d 546.

If petitioner’s present motion be construed as a “motion for leave to appeal the judgment heretofore rendered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan”, as stated in the opening paragraph thereof, the motion is denied. The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to grant an appeal. Crawford v. Gajewski, 6 Cir., 261 F.2d 301; Stuart v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 261 F.2d 274.

Petitioner, however, treats his motion as a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. We are of the opinion on the record presented to us that the motion has no merit and should not be sustained. Loum v. Underwood, 6 Cir., 262 F.2d 866; Holland v. Capital Transit Co., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 48, 184 F.2d 686, 689, certiorari denied 341 U.S. 954, 71 S.Ct. 1004, 95 L.Ed. 1375; Application of Pierce, 9 Cir., 246 F.2d 902; Parsell v. United States, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 232. The motion to appeal in forma pauperis is denied.

Appellant also moves for the appointment of counsel to assist him on this appeal. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense, does not apply to civil cases. Nivens v. United States, 5 Cir., 139 F.2d 226, 228, certiorari denied 321 U.S. 787, 64 S.Ct. 780, 88 L.Ed. 1077, rehearing denied 321 U.S. 804, 64 S.Ct. 805, 88 L.Ed. 1090, 322 U. S. 769, 64 S.Ct. 1142, 88 L.Ed. 1595; Graeber v. Schneckloth, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 710. The motion is denied.