EX PARTE TINKOFF

Citator

Cited By

• South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (U.S. 2010)
  …d we denied intervention in that case. We have also summarily denied motions to intervene in other water disputes between the States. See Arizona v. California, 514 U. S. 1081 (1995); Arizona v. California, 345 U. S. 914 (1953); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 296 U. S. 548 (1935); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 279 U. S. 821 (1929). And we have strongly intimated in other decisions (albeit in dictum) that private entities can rarely, if ever, intervene in original actions involving the apportionment of interstate waterways.…
• In re Tinkoff, 95 F.2d 651 (7th Cir. 1938)
  …d. 1366). The original appeal to this court from the judgment was dismissed (7 Cir., 77 F. 2d 1016) for deficiencies in procedure. Petition to the Supreme Court for mandamus to direct this court to reinstate the appeal was denied. Ex parte Tinkoff, 296 U.S. 548, 56 S.Ct. 176, 80 L.Ed. 388. Thereafter, while confined in Leavenworth penitentiary, said Tinkoff was granted by the Tenth Circuit (Tinkoff v. Zerbst, 80 F. 2d 464) a forty days’ release upon habeas corpus in order to seek reinstatement of his appea…