SCHAAF ET AL.

v.

ELEVENTH WARD BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Smith, 411 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1969)
  …nor legal significance.” The Court went on to say that the absence of counsel at the time of reception of the verdict was an “inconsequential impingement of the constitutional right.” See Kent v. Sanford, 121 F. 2d 216 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 315 U.S. 799, 62 S.Ct. 622, 86 L.Ed. 1200, for a similar fact situation and holding. We respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel for his defense at all critical st…
• Miller v. Sanford, 150 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1945)
  …om the district prior to the expiration of the five days allowed for appeal and the consequent deprivation of his right to appeal rendered the judgment null and void. This petition was denied and the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari, 315 U.S. 799, 62 S.Ct. 626, 86 L.Ed. 1200. Appellant then made his third effort in this court in cause No. 10,522, Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 134 F. 2d 485, by an appeal from a judgment denying “an extraordinary motion to set aside the judgment and senten…
• Miller v. United States, 134 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1943)
  …en filed in this court a petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court, and on December 5, 1941, the petition was denied. Cause No. 10152 on our docket. His petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on February 2, 1942, 315 U.S. 799, 62 S.Ct. 626, 86 L.Ed. 1200. On July 11, 1942, Miller filed in the District Court a motion styled “Extraordinary Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sentence and Grant a New Trial”, in which he alleged that he had been deprived of a fair and imparti…