green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. v. United States
Circuit has previously affirmed an order of the TTB's predecessor agency concluding that a transfer of shares from wife to husband "constitutes a change in the control and management of the business ... necessitating the issuance of a new basic permit under the Federal Alcohol Act." United Distillers II , 243 F.2d at 668 (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co v. United States of America
Circuit has previously affirmed an order of the TTB’s predecessor agency concluding that a transfer of shares from wife to husband “constitutes a change in the control and management of the business . . . necessitating the issuance of a new basic permit under the Federal Alcohol Act.” United Distillers II, 243 F.2d at 668 (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). 28 Even assuming, as the plaintiff argues, that Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code applies to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the FAAA at issue in this case, the plaintiff’s argument fa…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert D. ELBERT, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
13618.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 7, 1957.
243 F.2d 667
Mr. George C. Dreos, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Danaher, Bastian, Burger.
Published
PER CURIAM.
Appellant asks us to reverse his conviction of robbery. There was ample and substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The charge as given was adapted to the issues and clearly adequate for the guidance of the jury. Moreover, there was no objection by appellant to the charge before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim. P., 18 U.S.C.A. There is no error.
Affirmed.