Marga Faulstich v. David L. Ladd, Comm'r of Patents, (Two Cases), 338 F.2d 265 (D.C. Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Marga Faulstich v. David L. Ladd, Comm'r of Patents, (Two Cases), 338 F.2d 265 (D.C. Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
78 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States Ex Rel. El-Amin v. George Washington University (dcd, 2008-02-04) · Strongest negative: Burchett v. Commonwealth (ky, 2003-01-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
examined Cited "but see" Burchett v. Commonwealth (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ky. · 2003 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265 (D.C.Cir.1964), a case decided before the adoption of the federal rules. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States Ex Rel. El-Amin v. George Washington University (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2008 · confidence medium
D.C. 156, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965) (holding individual’s religious practice of observing the Sabbath does not constitute habit). 6 The admissibility of habit or routine practice “evidence under Rule 406 does not hinge on the ability of the party seeking exclusion of the evidence to disprove the habitual [or routine] character of the evidence.” Weil, 873 F.2d at 1461 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Long, Kenneth
D.C. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Fed.R.Evid. 403; see, e.g., United States v. Rose, 104 F.3d 1408, 1414 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Hays, 872 F.2d 582, 588 (5th Cir.1989); Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 273 (D.C.Cir.1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hooker v. State
Miss. · 1998 · confidence medium
"It is the nonvolitional character of habit evidence that makes it probative." Weil, 873 F.2d at 1460 (citing Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles C. Hooker v. State of Mississippi
Miss. · 1992 · confidence medium
Levin, 338 F. 2d at 272.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. United States
D.C. · 1990 · confidence medium
Where direct evidence of a defendant’s location on the date at issue was presented through the testimony of an eyewitness, the court affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to admit cumulative evidence of the defendant’s religious practices as part of his alibi defense. 14 The court noted that evidence of a person’s general habits is inadmissible, according to the- weight of authority, but agreed, citing Wigmore, supra, § 92, at 1607-10, that “it is of some probative value although ... far inferior to direct evidence as to what was done at the time and date in question.” 119 U.S.App.D.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leslie
cma · 1982 · confidence medium
Larceny § 13; 50 Am.Jur.2d, Larceny § 132; Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 268 (D.C.Cir.1964), ce rt. denied 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965), the Manual, supra, prescribes that “[t]he phrase ‘any other person’ means any person — even a person who has stolen the property — who has possession or a greater right to possession than the accused.” Therefore, even if property is merely in the possession of the United States, the wrongful taking of that property with intent to appropriate it permanently for the use of the taker constitutes larceny under Article …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hollimon
usarmymilrev · 1982 · confidence medium
“Certainly the very volitional basis of the activity raises serious questions as to its invariable nature, and hence its probative value.” Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reed v. United States
D.C. · 1968 · confidence medium
Levin v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 159 , 338 F.2d 265, 268 (1965), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Idoni
D.D.C. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265 , 273 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" Clifford Jones v. Honorable Oliver Gasch, Judge of the United States District Court for Thedistrict of Columbia (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Levin v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 156 , 164 n. 13, 338 F.2d 265 , 273 n. 13 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965); Burgman v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 188-189 , 188 F.2d 637, 641-642 , cert. denied 342 U.S. 838 , 72 S.Ct. 64 , 96 L.Ed. 1347 (1951).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rosebrock v. Eastern Shore Emergency Physicians, LLC
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1964) (testimony concerning religious practices not admissible because “the very volitional basis of the activity raises serious questions as to its invariable nature, and hence its probative value”), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Boscarino, Nick S.
7th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265 (D.C Cir. 1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Nick S. Boscarino
7th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265 (D.C.Cir.1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weil v. Seltzer
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1964) (testimony concerning religious practices not admissible because "the very volitional basis of the activity raises serious questions as to its invariable nature, and hence its probative value"), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weil v. Seltzer
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Levin v. United States, 338 F.2d 265, 272 (D.C.Cir.1964) (testimony concerning religious practices not admissible because “the very volitional basis of the activity raises serious questions as to its invariable nature, and hence its probative value”), ce rt. denied, 379 U.S. 999 , 85 S.Ct. 719 , 13 L.Ed.2d 701 (1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Farnsworth v. Steiner
Alaska · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Levin v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 156 , 338 F.2d 265 (D.C.
Marga Faulstich
v.
David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, (Two Cases)
18154.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Sep 19, 1964.
338 F.2d 265
Published

338 F.2d 265

Marga FAULSTICH, Appellant,
v.
David L. LADD, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee (two cases).

No. 18153.

No. 18154.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 25, 1964.

Decided June 15, 1964.

Petition for Rehearing Denied September 19, 1964.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Joseph R. Jackson, J.

Mr. Ralph D. Dinklage, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, New York City, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. George H. Mitchell, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, WRIGHT and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~265]1

These cases came on to be heard on the record on appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 218 F.Supp. 830, and were argued by counsel.

[*~277]2

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in these cases is hereby affirmed without prejudice to the reopening of the proceedings before the Patent Office, through any means available, for the purpose of allowing appellant the opportunity to amplify her applications for patents.