green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Beary v. West Publishing Company
See Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Co., 542 F.2d 180, 185-86 (3rd Cir.1976); Garfield v. Palmieri, 297 F.2d 526, 527 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 871 , 82 S.Ct. 1139 , 8 L.Ed.2d 275 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferri v. Ackerman
See O’Bryan v. Chandler, 496 F.2d 403 (10th Cir. 1974); Garfield v. Palmieri, 297 F.2d 526, 527 (2nd Cir. 1962); Meredith v. Van Oosterhout, 286 F.2d 216, 221-22 (8th Cir. 1960).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fred Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Company
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Garfield v. Palmieri, 297 F.2d 526, 527 (2d Cir. 1962).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Company
Bar and Bench alike rely upon the West Reporter volumes as sources in which to find the decisions of the U. S. Courts of Appeals and of the U. S. District Courts; and we take judicial notice that an opinion of a federal circuit or district judge is considered ‘not reported’ until it appears in Federal Reporter or Federal Supplement.” ( 297 F.2d at 527, 528 .) The circuit court also approved and adopted the district court opinion in that case, in which the following appears : “There are no official published reports of the opinions of the federal district courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
W. H. Pat O'Bryan v. Stephen S. Chandler
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871); Garfield v. Palmieri, 297 F.2d 526, 527 (2d Cir. 1962); Meredith v. Van Oosterhout, 286 F.2d 216, 221-222 (8th Cir. 1960); Brictson v. Woodrough, 164 F.2d 107, 109 (8th Cir. 1947); Restatement of Torts § 585 (1938); Wm.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Fire & Casualty Insurance
See also Garfield v. Palmieri, 193 F.Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff’d, 297 F.2d 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 871 , 82 S.Ct. 1139 , 8 L.Ed.2d 275 (1962); Garfield v. Palmieri, 193 F. Supp. 582 (S.D.N.Y.1960), aff’d, 290 F.2d 821 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 827 , 82 S.Ct. 46 , 7 L.Ed.2d 30 (1961).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Henry CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
17163_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 19, 1962.
297 F.2d 526
Eugene Garfinlde, San Francisco, Cal., appointed by the Court, for appellant., Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., and John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Chambers, Hamlin, Jameson, Per Curiam.
Published
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We find the evidence sufficient and the instructions taken as a whole free from any consequential error. Isolated, some fault can be found with certain individual instructions.
A point is made about illegal search and seizure. Nothing appears in the record that would enable this Court to say there was an illegal search or seizure. The defendant did not before conviction ever so contend. Nothing appears that was either shocking or out of order. It was not incumbent upon the government to make a detour and affirmatively, in effect, challenge its own evidence.
Court appointed counsel here has done exceedingly well with his presentation of the appeal, although we cannot agree with him.