Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. James Hurley BISHOP, alias James B. Kelly, Frank Robert Verville, alias Frank Edwards, Robert L. Halpin, alias Robert Gunther, Jacob Louis Shubow, Irving Isadore Lichterman, and Daniel Edward Wigodski, Defendants; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eugene Philip GILLIS, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-02-17
Citations: 191 F. Supp. 160
Docket Number: Nos. 59-CR-52, 59-CR-139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. James Hurley BISHOP, alias James B. Kelly, Frank Robert Verville, alias Frank Edwards, Robert L. Halpin, alias Robert Gunther, Jacob Louis Shubow, Irving Isadore Lichterman, and Daniel Edward Wigodski, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eugene Philip GILLIS, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 191
Pages: 160–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. James Hurley BISHOP, alias James B. Kelly, Frank Robert Verville, alias Frank Edwards, Robert L. Halpin, alias Robert Gunther, Jacob Louis Shubow, Irving Isadore Lichterman, and Daniel Edward Wigodski, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eugene Philip GILLIS, Defendant.
Nos. 59-CR-52, 59-CR-139.
United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.
Feb. 17, 1961.
Edward G. Minor, U. S. Atty., by Matthew M. Corry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, 111., for ■defendants Jacob Louis Shubow and Eugene Philip Gillis.
Adrian B. Fink, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, ■and John H. Wessel, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants Irving Isadore Lichterman and Daniel Edward Wigodski.

Opinion:
GRUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff, United States of America, has moved for a rehearing of the matters considered in this court's decision and order of December 6, 1960, 188 F.Supp. 804. The defendants, Irving Isadore Lichterman, Daniel Edward Wigodski, Jacob Louis Shubow, and Eugene Philip Gillis, have made a motion to dismiss the motion of the plaintiff for rehearing.
The matter was submitted on briefs. The court has carefully considered the material submitted and finds no basis for granting any rehearing. The court is of the opinion that this matter is squarely governed by Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 1959, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217.
The motion for rehearing is hereby denied.