United States v. Franzo Wayne King, 430 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Franzo Wayne King, 430 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John C. Sheehan v. Frank P. Doyle (ca1, 1975-03-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John C. Sheehan v. Frank P. Doyle
1st Cir. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 430 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1968), aff’g mem. 314 F.Supp. 235 (D.Conn.1968); In re Natta, 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968); Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968); Natta v. Zletz, 379 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1967); Gladrow v. Weisz, 354 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vincent J. Frilette, and Paul R. Weisz, Movants-Appellants v. Charles N. Kimberlin, Jr., and Elroy M. Gladrow, Opposers. Richard J. Duffy v. Gerald Barnes, Joseph R. Preziosi, William F. McGuinness James B. Duke,richard A. Craig, Charles C. Faroni, Richard Baubles and Donald Sager,defendants-Appellants
3rd Cir. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ochsner v. Millis, 382 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1967) 8 Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968) 9 Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 430 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1968), affirming per curiam 314 F.Supp. 235 (D.Conn.1968) 10 Lomex v. Kihara, 175 U.S.P.Q. 538 (D.C.D.C.1972) 11 Sheehan v. Doyle, 181 U.S.P.Q. 64 (D.Mass.1973) 12 See, e.g., Vogel v. Jones, 464 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1972); Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 457 F.2d 1307 (3d Cir. 1972); Montecatini Edison S. p.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Franzo Wayne KING, Defendant-Appellant
25579.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 16, 1970.
430 F.2d 1177
Rodney A. Klein (argued), of Fields & Klein, Sacramento, Cal., for appellant., Charles S. Fenning (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Phillip W. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee., Before MADDEN,* Judge, United States Court of Claims, DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge, and SWEIGERT,** District Judge.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial, by the District Court, of the defendant’s motion for an order permitting the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty, and setting aside the judgment and sentence theretofore entered against him. The motion was made pursuant to Rule 32(d) and Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The District Court denied the motion and filed an opinion which appears in 307 F.Supp. at page 217. Our conclusion is that the District Court’s decision was right, for the reasons stated in the Court’s able opinion. We therefore affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion.

Affirmed.