JACK A. SNODGRASS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment is not a final or appealable interlocutory order.
Appellant sought to appeal an order denying his motion to dismiss an indictment. The United States moved to dismiss the appeal.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Decision Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him. The United States has moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order is not a final decision so as to be subject to a right of appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, nor is it within the interlocutory orders enumerated in 28 U.S.C.A. §1292 as to which an appeal is permitted by that section.
Clearly, the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment is not an appealable order either under § 1291 or § 1292. United States v. Tiplitz, 3 Cir., 202 F. 2d 60; United States v. Golden, 2 Cir., 239 F. 2d 877; Chereton v. United States, 6 Cir., 256 F. 2d 576; Atlantic Fishermen’s Union, etc., v. United States, 1 Cir., 195 F. 2d 1021 and 1 Cir., 197 F. 2d 519.
No holdings by federal courts of appeals have been found to the contrary. An expression of dictum occurs in Blount v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 204, 144 F. 2d 21, 22, which may seem to be in conflict. There, in declaring that the sufficiency of an indictment was not subject to collateral attack in habeas corpus proceedings, the court added that ruling on the sufficiency of the indictment by the trial court in the criminal case “was final, subject only to appeal to this Court, and no appeal was taken”. This statement has never been the subject of quotation or citation in any reported federal case. It is without support of any other federal authority.
The motion of the United States is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Barket, 530 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Garber, 413 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1969)
-
The People OF the Territory OF Guam v. Lefever, 454 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atl. Fishermen's Union v. United States, 197 F.2d 519 (1st Cir. 1952)
- Atl. Fishermen's Union v. United States, 195 F.2d 1021 (1st Cir. 1952)
- United States v. Kobert D. Golden, 239 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1956)
- Chereton v. United States, 256 F.2d 576 (6th Cir. 1958)
- In re Cardwell, 256 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1957)
- Blount v. Huff, 144 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
- United States v. Tiplitz, 202 F.2d 60 (3d Cir. 1953)