Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 (1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 (1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“if the jury had acquitted, there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the government another go at this citizen.”
516 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 75 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Cervantes (illappct, 2013-06-11) · Strongest negative: Sosa v. Maxwell (fladistctapp, 1970-04-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955 1990 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Sosa v. Maxwell (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1970 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Sapir v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 and cf. Forman v. United States, 1960, 361 U.S. 416 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Cervantes
Ill. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if the jury had acquitted, there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the government another go at this citizen.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles C. Johnston and Gordon P. Ramsey, as Trustees of the Amec Liquidating Trust v. Ivac Corporation
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251 , 1259, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1967 (Fed.Cir.1989); Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 1569, 1571 , 9 USPQ2d, 1552, 1553 (Fed.Cir.1989); ZMI v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1582 , 6 USPQ2d 1557, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1988); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1740 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 *1578 (1988) (in banc); Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1551 , 224 USPQ 526, 533 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Barker (2×)
8th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
The government had every opportunity to present all the evidence at its disposal to the jury; through its own inadvertence it failed to do so. 3 Absent proof of an essen tial element of the offense, the jury should have found appellant not guilty; had it done so “there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the Government another go at this citizen.” Sapir v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at 374 , 75 S.Ct. at 423 (Douglas, J., concurring).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Barker
W.D. Mo. · 1977 · confidence medium
See also: Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 373-374 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426, 427-428 (1955) (Douglas, J. concurring); Forman v. United States, supra, 361 U.S. at 425-426 , 80 S.Ct. at 486-487 , 4 L.Ed.2d at 419 ; United States v. Wiley, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 382 , 517 F.2d 1212 (1975). 1 This exception has been criticized as lacking a sound jurisprudential basis.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Stoffan
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1974 · confidence medium
And see Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521 ; Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 18 ; Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 462 .” Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 374 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring).
discussed Cited "see" Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp.
N.D. Cal. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc) (noting that section 112 ¶ 6 "rules out the possibility that any and every means which performs the function specified in the claim literally satisfies that limitation”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988), and cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.
D. Kan. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiff has not shown any “subtlety of language or complexity of the technology, nor any subsequent change in the state of the art, such as later-developed technology, [which] obfuscated the significance of this limitation at the time of its incorporation into the claim.” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed.Cir.1997); see Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Laser Technology, Inc. v. Nikon, Inc.
D. Colo. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988) (overruled on other grounds).
discussed Cited "see" Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.
D. Kan. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiff has not shown any “subtlety of language or complexity of the technology, nor any subsequent change in the state of the art, such as later-developed technology, [which] obfuscated the significance of this limitation at the time of its incorporation into the claim.” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed.Cir.1997); see Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
cited Cited "see" General Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
D.N.J. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Texas Instruments Incorporated v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Lsi Logic Corporation, and Vlsi Technology, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Way land, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739-40 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988); 7 see also Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1582 , 37 USPQ2d 1365, 1373 (Fed.Cir.1996) (applying the Pennwalt rule after our in banc decision in Hilton Davis).
cited Cited "see" Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988); Dolly, 16 F.3d at 398 .
cited Cited "see" Davies v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Messerschmidt v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (“[A court] must find equivalent structure as well as identity of claimed function for that structure.”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Katz v. AIWA America, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988) and 485 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc., James B. Sullivan and Richard B. Fox v. Faytex Corporation, Defendant/cross-Appellant
Fed. Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739-40 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988); Per-kin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec., 822 F.2d 1528, 1533 , 3 USPQ2d 1321, 1325 (Fed.Cir.1987); Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1551 , 224 USPQ 526, 533 (Fed.Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see" Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. I.T.C., 805 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see" Unique Concepts, Inc., and Floyd M. Baslow v. Kevin Brown D/B/A Creative Walls, Templar and Schram, and World Plastics Extruders, Inc. (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Key Manufacturing Group, Inc. v. Microdot, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 , 934 n. 1, 4 USPQ2d, 1737, 1739 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" George W. Jurgens and Margaret M. Jurgens v. Timothy McKasy D/B/A Tonka Marketing and Cbk, Ltd.
Fed. Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 936 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1740-41 (Fed.Cir.1987) (equivalency of claim limitations and accused structure is a question of fact), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Black & Decker, Inc. Black & Decker (u.s.), Inc. And Cic Int'l Corp. v. Hoover Service Center, and the Hoover Company
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1740 (Fed.Cir.1987), cer t. denied, — U.S. - and -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 and 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 and 703 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Sun Studs, Inc. v. Ata Equipment Leasing, Inc., Applied Theory, Inc. And U.S. Natural Resources, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 , 4 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , 703 (1988) (holding that the omission of a claimed function and its substantial equivalent avoided infringement).
discussed Cited "see" Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934-35 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1569-70 , 231 USPQ 833, 840 (Fed.Cir.1986), reh'g denied, 846 F.2d 1369 , 6 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed.Cir.1988). 88 We conclude that the jury verdicts, viewed in light of the instructions, held that the Suzuki motorcycles with a rising rate infringed claim 9.
cited Cited "see" Labounty Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, and Dudley Shearing MacHine Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Intervenor
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , 703 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934-35 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1569-70 , 231 USPQ 833, 840 (Fed.Cir.1986), reh’g denied, 846 F.2d 1369 , 6 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see" Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corporation, Defendant/cross-Appellant
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739-40 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , (1988), — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Anthony Dipasquale (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955).
examined Cited "see" Bullard v. Estelle (3×)
N.D. Tex. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 374 , 75 S.Ct. 422, 423 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring); D.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Marvin Mandel, United States of America v. W. Dale Hess, United States of America v. Harry W. Rodgers, Iii, United States of America v. William A. Rodgers, United States of America v. Irvin Kovens, United States of America v. Ernest N. Cory, Jr., United States of America v. W. Dale Hess, Harry W. Rodgers, Iii, and William A. Rodgers (3×)
4th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Justice Douglas concurring); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957); Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (1960).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Mandel (3×)
4th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Justice Douglas concurring); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957); Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (1960).
discussed Cited "see" Burks v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 533-534 .” 338 U. S., at 560 . *7 Five years after Bryan was decided, a similar claim of-double jeopardy was presented to the Court in Sapir v. United States, 348 U. S. 373 (1955).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Bennie Graves (6×)
3rd Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 374 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Douglas, J., concurring); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036, 1049 (3d Cir. 1975)
examined Cited "see" United States v. Ronald Robinson (3×)
2d Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955); Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416, 425-26 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (1960).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinez (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373, 373-74 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955) (Douglas, J. concurring). .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Ruiz-Estrella (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 ; contrast Forman v. United States, 1960, 361 U.S. 416, 425-426 , 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 (propér to order new trial where defect in charge, not in proofs, required the reversal).
examined Cited "see" Youngblood v. State (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 .
cited Cited "see" Gray v. State
Md. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See concurring opinion, 348 U. S., at 374 .
examined Cited "see" Lester Alvin Buatte v. United States (3×)
9th Cir. · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See the concurring opinion in Sapir v. United States, 348 U.S. 373 , 75 S.Ct. 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 , as commented upon in Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416 , at page 426, 80 S.Ct. 481 , 4 L.Ed.2d 412 , and see “Double Jeopardy: A New Trial After Appellate Reversal for Insufficient Evidence,” 31 University of Chicago Law Review 365.
discussed Cited "see" James Glover v. United States (2×)
10th Cir. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sapir v. United States, 348, U.S. 373, 75 S.Ct, 422 , 99 L.Ed. 426 .
examined Cited "see" Forman v. United States (4×)
SCOTUS · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ball and other cases, supra. Nor does Sapir v. United States, 348 U. S. 373 (1955), require a different conclusion, as petitioner claims.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Altech Controls Corp. v. E.I.L. Instruments, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc) (“To determine whether a claim limitation is met literally, where expressed as a means for performing a stated function, the court must compare the accused structure with the disclosed structure, and must find equivalent structure as well as identity of claimed function for the structure”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Donaldson Company, Inc
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1575 , 225 USPQ 236, 239 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 933-34 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1741 (Fed.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988). 9 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Judin v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Becton, 922 F.2d at 798 n. 3 (quoting Union Water Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U.S. 332, 337 , 25 L.Ed. 1024 (1880)); see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 949-54 (Fed.Cir.1987) (Nies, J., concurring), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , and cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1009 , 108 S.Ct. 1474 , 99 L.Ed.2d 703 (1988). [A] court may not, under the guise of applying the doctrine of equivalents, erase a plethora of meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 , 4 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc ), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988) (requiring presence of every claim element, literally or by an equivalent) with Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 607-08 , 70 S.Ct. at 855-56 , 85 USPQ at 330 (equivalency is determined of the invention as a whole).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1991 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 , 4 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 , 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988) (requiring presence of every claim element, literally or by an equivalent) with Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 607-08 , 70 S.Ct. at 855-56 , 85 USPQ at 330 (equivalency is determined of the invention as a whole).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Estate of Stoller v. Ford Motor Co.
N.D. Ill. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 , 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737, 1739 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc) (stating two-part test in infringement case), cert. denied, — U.S. -, -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 , 703 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Deuterium Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1989 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988), with Nestier Corp. v. Menasha Corp., 739 F.2d 1576 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1053 , 105 S.Ct. 1756 , 84 L.Ed.2d 819 (1985). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A.
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although each claim limitation may not literally be found in the accused structure, the "substantially the same way" prong of the Graver Tank test is met if an equivalent of a recited limitation has been substituted in the accused device, see Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 610 , 70 S.Ct. at 857 ; see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 937 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1741 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988); Perkin-Elmer Corp., 822 F.2d at 1533 , 3 USPQ2d at 1325; Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although each claim limitation may not literally be found in the accused structure, the “substantially the same way” prong of the Graver Tank test is met if an equivalent of a recited limitation has been substituted in the accused device, see Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 610 , 70 S.Ct. at 857 ; see also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 937 , 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1741 (Fed.Cir.1987) (in banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1226 , 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988); Perkin-Elmer Corp., 822 F.2d at 1533 , 3 USPQ2d at 1325; Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sapir
v.
United States
534.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 7, 1955.
348 U.S. 373
Sam Dazzo for petitioner., Solicitor General SobelojJ, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Joseph A. Barry for the United States.
Douglas.
Cited by 113 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted.

We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals of October 20, 1954, reversing and remanding this cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment was correct. It is not necessary for us to pass on the question presented under its subsequent judgment of November 17, 1954, directing a new trial. We vacate the latter judgment, which directed the new trial, and we reinstate the former one which instructed the trial court to dismiss the indictment.

Concurrence

Mr. Justice Douglas,

concurring.

Petitioner was convicted by the jury of a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Petitioner moved for a judgment of acquittal. The District Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that that motion should have been granted, as the evidence[*374] was insufficient to convict. 216 F. 2d 722. It accordingly reversed and remanded the cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment. Later, the Government moved to amend the judgment so as to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals granted the motion of the Government.

The granting of a new trial after a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence violates the command of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

The correct rule was stated in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, at 130, “It is, then, the settled law of this court that former jeopardy includes one who has been acquitted by a verdict duly rendered . . . .” If the jury had acquitted, there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the Government another go at this citizen. If, as in the Kepner case, the trial judge had rendered a verdict of acquittal, the guarantee against double jeopardy would prevent a new trial of the old offense. I see no difference when the appellate court orders a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence.

If petitioner had asked for a new trial, different considerations would come into play, for then the defendant opens the whole record for such disposition as might be just. See Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552. And see Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521; Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15, 18; Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 462. Moreover, a reversal by the appellate court on grounds of error that infected the trial would also be different, as Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, shows. But an acquittal on the basis of lack of evidence concludes the controversy, as the Kepner case holds, and puts it at rest under the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, absent a motion by the defendant for a new trial.