Villa Mae Simmons v. Maison Blanche Co., 367 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Villa Mae Simmons v. Maison Blanche Co., 367 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a parolee who commits a crime may be required to serve the balance of his term, regardless of the fact that it would otherwise have expired.”
38 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: HARRIS v. COLE (paed, 2023-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) HARRIS v. COLE
E.D. Pa. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a parolee who commits a crime may be required to serve the balance of his term, regardless of the fact that it would otherwise have expired.
cited Cited "see" Ambrek v. Clark
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States ex rel Heacock v. Myers, 251 F.Supp. 773 (E.D.Pa.1966) aff’d, 367 F.2d 583 (3rd Cir. 1967); United States ex rel.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Warner Press, Inc. v. Warner Books, Inc.
S.D. Ind. · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Friedman v. United States Trunk Co., 204 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), aff’d 367 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1966); Sunbury Wire Rope Mfg.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Villa Mae SIMMONS, Appellant,
v.
MAISON BLANCHE COMPANY, Appellee
22928_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 2, 1966.
367 F.2d 583
Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, La., for appellant., Pat W. Browne, Jr., of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Jones, Coleman, Christenberry.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
PER CURIAM.

The appellant complains of charges given and of other charges refused at the trial in the district court. She asserts that the district court committed error in not excusing a juror for cause. We have reviewed the record and are unable to find reversible error. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.