Janko v. United States, 366 U.S. 716 (1961). · Go Syfert
Janko v. United States, 366 U.S. 716 (1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Bell (ca8, 1966-07-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Bell
8th Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Janko v. United States, 366 U.S. 716 , 81 S.Ct. 1662 , 6 L.Ed.2d 846 (1961).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bell
8th Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Janko v. United States, 366 U.S. 716 , 81 S.Ct. 1662 , 6 L.Ed.2d 846 (1961). 12 In any event, we have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have concluded that the commission's amended report does not meet the requirements of Merz.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bishop
SCOTUS · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Janko v. United States, 281 F. 2d 156, 166-167 (CA8 1960), rev’d on confession of error by the Solicitor General, 366 U. S. 716 (1961) (§§ 7201 and 7207); Lumetta v. United States, 362 F. 2d 644 , 646 n. 3 (CA8 1966) (§§ 7201 and *349 7203); Escobar v. United States, 388 F. 2d 661 (CA5 1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1024 (1968) (§§ 7206 (1) and 7207).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JANKO
v.
UNITED STATES.
380, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 29, 1961.
366 U.S. 716
Per Curiam.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

Norman S. London and Sidney M. Glazer for petitioner.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice and Meyer Rothwacks for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the confession of error by the Solicitor General and an examination of the entire record, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a new trial.