NIXON v. RICHEY

No. 75-1063.

513 F.2d 430 (1975)

Richard NIXON, Petitioner, v. Honorable Charles R. RICHEY, UNITED STATES District Court for the District of Columbia, Respondent.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided February 14, 1975.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D.C., argued the motion for petitioner. Raymond G. Larroca, William H. Jeffress, Jr., and R. Stan Mortenson, Washington, D.C., were on the motion for petitioner.

Irwin Goldbloom, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., argued for the Administrator of General Services and the United States of America. Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Irving Jaffee, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., and Earl J. Silbert, U.S. Atty., were on the pleading filed in the cause by those parties.

Peter M. Kreindler, Counsel to the Sp. Prosecutor, Watergate Sp. Prosecution Force, for the Sp. Prosecutor as amicus curiae. Henry S. Ruth, Jr., Sp. Prosecutor, and Kenneth S. Geller, Asst. Sp. Prosecutor, were on the pleadings filed in the cause by the Sp. Prosecutor.

Robert E. Herzstein, Washington, D.C., argued for The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and others, as amici curiae. Andrew S. Krulwich and Mark J. Spooner, Washington, D.C., were on the pleadings filed in the cause by The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and others.

William A. Dobrovir, Washington, D.C., argued for Jack Anderson as amicus curiae. Andra N. Oakes, Washington, D.C., was on the pleadings filed in the cause by Jack Anderson.

Leon Friedman, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice by special leave of the Court, argued for Lillian Hellman, and others as amici curiae. Melvin L. Wulf, New York City, was on the pleading filed in the cause by Lillian Hellman, and others.

Before BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROBINSON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus directing a District Judge to immediately grant a pending application for a three-judge court to hear and determine a case challenging the constitutionality of an act of Congress, and instructing the judge to give that case priority over three consolidated cases pending before him as a single judge. In a prior opinion,1 we held that the judge had to rule on the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases