green
Positive treatment
3.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC
See Frazier v. Ash, 234 F.2d 320, 326 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 893 , 77 S.Ct. 133 , 1 L.Ed.2d 87 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ferrell v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Kenny, 236 F.2d 128 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 894 , 77 S.Ct. 133 , 1 L.Ed.2d 87 (1956) (separate indictments tried together); Cosgrove v. United States, supra [ 224 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1955)], (multiple count indictment); United States v. Perrone, 161 F.Supp. 252 (S.D.N.Y.1958) (multiple count indictment).” The applicability of the inconsistent verdict rule, under circumstances like those in the present case, was also discussed in detail by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Mespoulede, supra, 597 F.2d at 336-337 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Alexander Levy
See Leiser v. United States, 234 F.2d 648, 650 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 893 , 77 S.Ct. 133 , 1 L.Ed.2d 87 (1956) (statute allowing customs officials to *39 search baggage of arriving passengers includes unscheduled stops where passengers had no intent to enter the United States).
discussed
Cited "see"
Prince George's County v. Arundel Supply Corp.
See Falcone v. Palmer Ford, Inc., 242 Md. 487, 494 , 219 A. 2d 808, 810-11 (1966) and Gallagher’s Estate v. Battle, 209 Md. 592, 604 , 122 A. 2d 93, 99 , cert. denied, 352 U. S. 894 , 77 S. Ct. 133 , 1 L.Ed.2d 87 (1956), applying the same basic rule in regard to ambiguous contracts.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Flowers
See United States v. Kenny, 236 F.2d 128 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 352 U.S. 894 , 77 S.Ct. 133 , 1 L.Ed.2d 87 (1956) (separate indictments tried together); Cosgrove v. United States, supra, (multiple count indictment); United States V.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morgantown Glassware Guild, Inc.
v.
Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury
v.
Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury
No. 389.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 5, 1956.
Roy St. Lewis and Carl L. Shipley for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub and Melvin Richter for respondent.
Published
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.