COCHRAN

v.

BIRKEL

Citator

Cited By

• Piatt v. Ellis MacDOUGALL, 773 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …(1973). Arizona is free to restrict the right of indigent litigants to a waiver of filing fees, Tahti- [*1035] nen v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 513, 516, 637 P. 2d 723, 726 (1981), cert. denied, sub nom., Mendibles v. Superior Court of Pinal County, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1021, 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), as long as the case does not implicate a fundamental interest and the litigant has some alternative recourse not conditioned on the payment of a fee. See Ortwein, 410 U.S. at 659, 93 S.Ct. at 1174; United Stat…
• United States v. Quema Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373 (6th Cir. 1984)
  …eas petitioner, see Jago v. United States District Court, 570 F. 2d 618 (6th Cir.1978), and to proceed with a case when the notice of appeal is from a patently non-appealable order, see Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F. 2d 1219 (6th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1020, 71 L.Ed.2d 307 (1982). The district court’s order vacating part of the sentence upon the motion under Rule 35 cannot be characterized as not affecting the merits of this appeal; nor can it be seriously contended that Holloway’s con…
• Wall v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 718 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …rcuit, every other court to face the question has concluded that checking the jury demand box on the civil cover sheet is insufficient to meet the requirements of rule 38(b). Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F. 2d 1219, 1221 n. 4 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1020, 71 L.Ed.2d 307 (1982); Omawale v. WBZ, 610 F. 2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.1979); Biesenkamp v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 70 F.R.D. 365, 366 (E.D.Pa.1976); see also Houston North Hospital Properties v. Telco Leasing, Inc., 688 F. 2d 408, 410 (5…