green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
McIntyre v. United States
But see United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61 , 66 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (slighting references to defense counsel by court in jury trial not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, where Government’s case was strong and the judge’s comments did not reflect on defendant’s case so much as on the way it was being handled).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Kovalchick
Accord, Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 208 F.Supp. 50, 54 (W.D.Pa.1962), aff'd, 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Katsougrakis, John Hiotis
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 69 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963) (pointing of finger held to be a statement for purposes of hearsay rule).
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Hickman
See, Berguido v. Eastern Airlines, Incorporated, 317 F.2d 628 (3rd Cir.1963), cert. den. 375 U.S. 895 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 124 ; American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 418 F.2d 180 (5th Cir.1969).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Chicarelli
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61 , 66 at n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963)
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fred G. Amick
(2×)
See United States v. Ross (2d Cir., 1963), 321 F.2d 61, 65 , cert. den. 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 ; Irwin v. United States (9th Cir., 1964), 338 F.2d 770, 774 , cert. den. 381 U.S. 911 , 85 S.Ct. 1530 , 14 L.Ed.2d 433 ; United States v. Schaefer (7th Cir., 1962), 299 F.2d 625, 629 ; United States v. Vasen (7th Cir., 1955), 222 P.2d 3 , 8, cert. den. 350 U.S. 834 , 76 S.Ct. 70 , 100 L.Ed. 744 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
B. L. Suhl v. United States
See United States v. Ross, 2 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 61 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 ; United States v. Houlihan, 2 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 8 , cert. denied, 379 U.S. 828 , 85 S.Ct. 56 , 13 L.Ed.2d 37 ; United States v. Feldman, 2 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 394 , aff’d, 322 U.S. 487 , 64 S.Ct. 1082 , 88 L.Ed. 1408 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Costello, James \Totto\" Marchetti and Arthur Gjanci
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 68-69 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S. Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963). 4 15 Subject to a general point made by Costello which we will mention below, this discussion suffices to dispose of the objections of Marchetti and Costello to the admission of Ripa's testimony as to the placing of bets with Gjanci between July 23 and 31, on the ground that the court had ruled only that a sufficient showing of conspiracy had been made for the period beginning August 12. 5 Even more clearly it disposes of the objection of each appellant to testimony as to…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Costello
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 68-69 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S. Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963). 4 Subject to a general point made by Costello which we will mention below, this discussion suffices to dispose of the objections of Marehetti and Costello to the admission of Ripa’s testimony as to the placing of bets with Gjanci between July 23 and 31, on the ground that the court had ruled only that a sufficient showing of conspiracy had been made for the period beginning August 12. 5 Even more clearly it disposes of the objection of each appellant to testimony as to …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Saul I. Birnbaum
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61 , 66 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963); Goldstein v. United States, 63 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir. 1933); cf. United States v. Persico, 305 F.2d 534, 540 , (2d Cir. 1962); United States v. Ah Kee Eng, 241 F.2d 157, 161 (2d Cir. 1957).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Press
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61 , 66 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963); Goldstein v. United States, 63 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir. 1933); cf. United States v. Persico, 305 F.2d 534, 540 (2d Cir. 1962); United States v. Ah Kee Eng, 241 F.2d 157, 161 , 62 A.L.R.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1957).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Press
See United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61 , 66 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963); Goldstein v. United States, 63 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir. 1933); cf. United States v. Persico, 305 F.2d 534, 540 (2d Cir. 1962); United States v. Ah Kee Eng, 241 F.2d 157, 161 , 62 A.L.R.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1957). 44 Since the dialogue was in itself innocuous, we do not find reversible error in the refusal to charge as requested that the 'verdict should be one based on the facts and not on bias or prejudice or revenge or sympathy and the fact that the defendants or some of th…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Martin Benjamin, Bernard Howard and Milton Z. Mende
See 7 Wigmore, Evidence 617 (3d ed. 1940), and United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 69 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin
See 7 Wigmore, Evidence 617 (3d ed. 1940), and United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 69 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Birdie Mae Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama
See 84 S.Ct. 170 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International Airport
The federal statute is not a “total prohibition against ‘all evaluation, opinion and conclusion evidence.” Keen, 569 F.2d at 551 (quoting Kline v. Martin, 345 F.Supp. 31, 32 (E.D.Va.1972)); see also Berguido v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 317 F.2d 628, 632 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 895 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 124 (1963) (the primary thrust of the provision is to exclude reports which express agency views as to the probable cause of the accident).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mosely v. United States
See, e.g., Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963), cited in Smoot, 340 F.2d at 303 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rita M. Lavelle
See also United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 67 (2d Cir.) (proper to admit evidence that defendant, charged with securities fraud, who claimed that he had been duped by his employer, had drifted among firms engaged in selling worthless securities), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963). 2.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. Gould
See also Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. Gould, Inc.
See also Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.)(per curiam), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sidney Rosenstein
See also United States v. Ross, 321 F.2d 61, 68-69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 894 , 84 S.Ct. 170 , 11 L.Ed.2d 123 (1963), where Chief Judge Friendly oberved: “ [W] e should hardly be warranted in reversing for the admission of evidence simply because the judge did not place his ruling on the ground that would most readily have supported it.” 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Selas Corp. v. Wilshire Oil Co.
See also Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F. 2d 69 (C.A. 3, 1963), cert. den. 375 U. S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963); Hudson Engineering Co. v. Bingham Pump Co., 298 F.Supp. 387 (S.D.N.Y.1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ouida J. Weissinger A/K/A Ouida Boyd and Mrs. George Boyd v. United States
(2×)
Compare Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.) cert. denied 375 U.S. 897 , 84 S.Ct. 174 , 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963); Creek Indians National Council v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., supra. In Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 , 81 S.Ct. 534 , 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961) the question presented to and ruled on by the Supreme Court was “whether the present proceeding was barred by the order of the District Court dismissing the earlier proceeding * * * without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.” (Emphasis added). 365 U.S. at 284 , 81 S.Ct. at 544 , 5 L.Ed.2d at 56…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willmark Service System, Inc.
v.
Wirtz, Secretary of Labor
v.
Wirtz, Secretary of Labor
No. 347.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 28, 1963.
Clarence Fried for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Charles Donahue, Bessie Margolin, Sylvia S. Ellison and Caruthers G. Berger for respondent.
Consideration, Took.
Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.