Elliott Sheppard v. United States, 355 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Elliott Sheppard v. United States, 355 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Donald Allen v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C (ca5, 2014-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Donald Allen v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C (2×)
5th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harshman, 248 F. Supp. at 958 , aff’d, 355 F.2d 206 ; Troutt, 107 F.3d at 1107-10 ; Goldberg, 291 F.2d at 234-35 .
discussed Cited "see" Friedrich v. Computer Services (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See DOL Wage & Hour Field Operations Handbook at 24a05(d) (May 13, 1982) (employee of private carrier who transports property in interstate travel in personal vehicle is subject to otherwise applicable MCA exemption). 42 The dissent acknowledges that tool kits were necessary to the performance of plaintiffs' job duties, dissenting op. at 420, but suggests that the transportation of the kits and replacement parts in personal vehicles to customer sites was ancillary because plaintiffs "could have easily mailed the tool kits and replacement parts to customers sites." Id.
cited Cited "see" Sutton v. Hilco Homes Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Harsh-man v. Well Service, Inc., 248 F.Supp. 953, 960 (1964), af'd per curiam, 355 F. 2d 206 (C.A. 3, 1965).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elliott SHEPPARD, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
19749.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 31, 1966.
355 F.2d 206
Edward I. Gritz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Arthur I. Berman, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appel-lee.
Barnes, Jertberg, Ely.
Published
PER CURIAM:

From an examination of the evidence supporting the conviction of appellant on Count II, we are convinced it was insufficient. The judgment of conviction as to Count II is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court with direction to dismiss Count II.

From an examination of the evidence supporting the conviction of appellant on Count III, we are convinced the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The evidentiary errors asserted by appellant we find to be without merit, under the circumstances here existing. The judgment of conviction on Count III is affirmed.