green
Positive treatment
18.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Feodis Beal v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Multiple federal courts have also determined that a trial court’s refusal to sequester witnesses “does not amount to a deprivation of [a defendant’s] constitutional rights[.]” Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489, 489 (5th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted); see also Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169, 170 (7th Cir. 1988) (“A refusal to exclude (‘separate’) witnesses until they testify is not a denial of due process . . . the due process clause does not incorporate every refinement of legal procedure designed to make trials fairer or more accurate[.]”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bandy v. Clancy
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
The court concluded that the language of the will stating, “The provisions of any statute requiring the apportionment or proration of such taxes among the beneficiaries of this will or the transferees of such property, or the ultimate payment of such taxes by them, shall be without effect in the settlement of my estate”, id. at 491, expressed the testator’s intention that the Connecticut appropriation statute did not apply, and that estate taxes were to be paid out of the residuary: It would be difficult to conceive of a clearer direction expressing the thought that death taxes, together…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edwards
Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489, 489 (5th Cir.1965); 29 Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169, 170 (7th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ESTATE OF
The Second Circuit ultimately affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on this issue, holding that the will unambiguously reflected that the state proration statute would not apply, and that the Probate Court's contrary decision did not require a different result, noting that the judges of such courts are laymen and their decisions "are even subject to collateral attack in another probate district." Second National Bank of New Haven, 351 F.2d at 494. 14 The Supreme Court affirmed in the Connecticut case and remanded to the Second Circuit in the New York case, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel D. Magavern, as and Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of Margaret C. Duncan, Deceased v. United States
(2×)
The Supreme Court there affirmed the opinion of this court in Second National Bank v. United States, 351 F.2d 489 (1965), where this court had expressly upheld a federal district court’s finding that “decrees of the Connecticut Probate Court . . . under no circumstances can be construed as binding and conclusive upon a federal court in construing and applying the federal revenue laws.” 351 F.2d at 494, aff’g in part 222 F.Supp. 446, 457 (D.Conn.1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Herman J. Bosch, Deceased, Irving Trust Company, Executor,respondent
Under the circumstances, it was unnecessary ‘to make a finding as to whether the proceedings in the Probate Court were collusive or nonadversary in nature’ and the court properly refrained from so doing.” 351 F.2d at 494.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Old Kent Bank & Trust Co. v. United States
Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, 351 F.2d 489, 494 (C.A. 2).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Old Kent Bank And Trust Company v. United States
Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, 351 F.2d 489, 494 (C.A.2).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rock v. Zimmerman
See Mathis v. Wainwright, 351 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1009 , 86 S.Ct. 1960 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966). 5 . 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch
(2×)
If the statute is not applicable, as the Commissioner has held, the marital deduction would be approximately $1,700,000. [2] The District Court concluded that Connecticut probate courts are not courts of records (but see Shelton v. Hadlock, 62 Conn. 143 , 25 A. 483 , and 1 Locke & Kohn, Connecticut Probate Practice 30 (1951)), that its decrees are without legal effect in the State's higher courts, and that their decrees are also subject to collateral attack even in another probate district. 222 F. Supp., at 457 ; see also 351 F. 2d, at 494 . [3] A supplementary report of the Senate Finance Com…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert T. MATHIS, Appellant,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee
22436_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 5, 1965.
351 F.2d 489
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.
Tuttle, Thornberry, Carswell.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the trial court denying the petition for habeas corpus from a state court conviction is affirmed.
Appellant’s complaint that the trial court failed to invoke the rule of sequestration of witnesses does not raise a question that can be reached by federal habeas corpus, since such denial does not amount to a deprivation of appellant’s constitutional rights, United States v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 303 F.2d 851.
The contention that appellant’s constitutional rights were denied him by the knowing use by the State of perjured testimony has not been presented to the state court for relief. It can therefore not be considered here. So, too, was there a failure by the appellant to present to the state court his contention that there had been an illegal exclusion of Negroes from the jury.