Narrative Opinion Summary
In No. 122, the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment from November 16, 1940, is denied due to untimeliness, as it was not filed within the legal timeframe established by 28 U.S.C. § 350. In No. 121, the motion to dispense with filing and printing unnecessary portions of the record is also denied. The Court, after reviewing the submitted documents, finds no basis for issuing a writ of certiorari, leading to a denial of the petition in this case as well.
Legal Issues Addressed
Basis for Issuing a Writ of Certiorarisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court found no grounds to issue a writ of certiorari upon reviewing the submitted documents, leading to the denial of the petition.
Reasoning: The Court, after reviewing the submitted documents, finds no basis for issuing a writ of certiorari, leading to a denial of the petition in this case as well.
Necessity of Filing and Printing Complete Recordssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion to omit filing and printing unnecessary portions of the record was denied, indicating the necessity for complete records.
Reasoning: In No. 121, the motion to dispense with filing and printing unnecessary portions of the record is also denied.
Timeliness of Petition for Writ of Certiorarisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied because it was not filed within the legal timeframe as required by statute.
Reasoning: In No. 122, the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment from November 16, 1940, is denied due to untimeliness, as it was not filed within the legal timeframe established by 28 U.S.C. § 350.