United States v. Arthur Anthony Rocco, Alias Arthur Lewis, 193 F.2d 1008 (3rd Cir. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Arthur Anthony Rocco, Alias Arthur Lewis, 193 F.2d 1008 (3rd Cir. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bank Of America National Trust And Savings Association v. Arthur A. Rocco (ca1, 1955-10-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Bank Of America National Trust And Savings Association v. Arthur A. Rocco
1st Cir. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rocco, D.C.W.D.Pa.1951, 99 F.Supp. 746 , affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 1008 3 31 Code Fed.Regs. § 307.4 (1949). 'Interest.
cited Cited "see" Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Rocco
3rd Cir. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rocco, D.C.W.D.Pa.1951, 99 F.Supp. 746 , affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 1008 . . 31 Code Fed.Regs. § 307.4 (1949).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Fred John Corey and Mary Carolyn Fulghum v. United States
9th Cir. · 1962 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., United States v. Rocco, 99 F.Supp. 746, 749 (W.D.Pa.1951), opinion adopted 193 F.2d 1008 (3d Cir. 1952), cert. denied 343 U.S. 927 , 72 S.Ct. 761 , 96 L.Ed. 1338 . 9 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Arthur Anthony ROCCO, Alias Arthur Lewis, Appellant
10569_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 4, 1952.
193 F.2d 1008
Charles J. Margiotti, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Vincent M. Casey and Margiotti & Casey, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., Edward C. Boyle, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Kalodner, Per Curiam, Staley, Stewart.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Following a jury verdict of guilty on eighteen counts contained in an indictment, the defendant, in the Court below, moved for judgment of acquittal or in the alternative for a new trial. The District Court in an exhaustive and well-reasoned opinion, 99 F.Supp. 746, considered and then denied the defendant’s motions.

We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Marsh in his careful analysis of the defendant’s contentions in support of the denied motions and accordingly the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed upon his opinion.