James W. Kindelan & Mary Kindelan v. United States, 351 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
James W. Kindelan & Mary Kindelan v. United States, 351 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Danielson v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots (ca2, 1975-05-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Danielson v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See McLeod v. Ameri-can Fed. of Television & Radio Artists, 234 F.Supp. 832 , 840-42 (S.D.N.Y.1964), affd on the district court opinion, 351 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1965). .
discussed Cited "see" Danielson v. International Organization Of Masters, Mates And Pilots, Afl-Cio
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See McLeod v. American Fed. of Television & Radio Artists, 234 F.Supp. 832 , 840-42 (S.D.N.Y.1964), Aff'd on the district court opinion, 351 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1965) 10 Section V, subdivision 1, provides: "a.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Motte
S.D.N.Y. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See McLeod v. American Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists, 234 F.Supp. 832, 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) and eases cited therein, aff’d 351 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1965) (Per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James W. KINDELAN and Mary Kindelan, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
21909.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 4, 1965.
351 F.2d 310
Thomas H. Anderson and Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, Fla., for appellants., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Robert N. Anderson, Edward I. Heilbronner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., La-vinia L. Redd, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.
Jones, Bell, Johnson.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which are the basis for its judgment from which this appeal was taken. Kindelan v. United States, S.D.Fla.1964, 233 F.Supp. 557. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions reached by the district court. See United States v. Howe, 9th Cir. 1965, 349 F.2d 483. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.