Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States, 487 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Thomas J. Patterson, 92810 v. United States, 487 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Cotton Warehouse Association v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Industrial Union Department, Afl-Cio and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Clc, Intervenors. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Afl-Cio, Etc., Intervenors, (Two Cases). Milliken and Company v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor and Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Arkwright Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Spartan Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Blair Mills, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Hermitage, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Dan River, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Cone Mills Corporation v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Mayfair Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Springs Mills, Inc. v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Riegel Textile Corporation v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, and Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, American Cotton Shippers Association v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, National Cottonseed Products Association v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, National Cotton Council of America v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor (cadc, 1980-01-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Cotton Warehouse Association v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Industrial Union Department, Afl-Cio and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Clc, Intervenors. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Afl-Cio, Etc., Intervenors, (Two Cases). Milliken and Company v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor and Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Arkwright Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Spartan Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Blair Mills, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Hermitage, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Dan River, Inc. v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Cone Mills Corporation v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Mayfair Mills v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Springs Mills, Inc. v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Riegel Textile Corporation v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, and Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, American Cotton Shippers Association v. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, National Cottonseed Products Association v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, National Cotton Council of America v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Indus. v. Dep't of Labor, 487 F.2d 341, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973) (convergence between "substantial evidence" and "arbitrary or capricious" criteria) 47 The substantial evidence test was adopted in the Act apparently as a compromise when the House relinquished its advocacy of formal agency proceedings and adopted the Senate's informal rulemaking provision.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Indus. v. Dep’t of Labor, 487 F.2d 341, 349-50 (2d Cir. 1973) (convergence between “substantial evidence” and “arbitrary or capricious” criteria). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas J. PATTERSON, #92810, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
73-2788.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 9, 1973.
487 F.2d 341
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7091
Thomas A. Deas, Mobile, Ala., Court-Appointed, for petitioner-appellant., Charles S. White-Spunner, U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Gewin, Coleman, Morgan.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law. ■

The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant’s claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel’s testimony, the district court denied relief.

We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court’s determinations of the factual issues.

Affirmed.