Guido v. United States, 377 U.S. 952 (1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Guido v. United States, 377 U.S. 952 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 30 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jones v. Boyd (vaed, 1995-05-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. Boyd
E.D. Va. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins, 331 F.2d 192 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1629 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964); Keatley v. Food Lion, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 1335, 1338 (E.D.Va. 1989).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. State
Fla. · 1980 · signal: accord · confidence high
Given this posture, we do not believe that the trial court's technical error injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant. § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1975); Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605 , 137 So. 886 (1931); Reliable Services, Inc. v. Taft, 247 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); accord, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1630 , 12 *541 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1963). [6] As is our duty in death penalty cases, we have thoroughly examined the entire record in this case and find t…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lowell G. Anderson
10th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins, 331 F.2d 192, 195-96 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1629 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 ; General Tire & Rubber v. Watson-Bowman Associates, 74 F.R.D. 139 , 140 n. 1 (D.Del.).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Danmar Associates v. Porter
D. Conn. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins, 331 F.2d 192, 197-98 (4th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1629 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ray Roya
7th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
The denial of a motion for a bill of particulars does not constitute an abuse of discretion “unless the deprivation of the information sought leads to the defendant’s inability adequately prepare his case, to avoid surprise at trial, or to avoid the later risk of double jeopardy.” United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 64 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 936 , 92 S.Ct. 949 , 30 L.Ed.2d 812 (1972); see also United States v. Micele, 327 F.2d 222 , 226 *392 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 952 , 84 S.Ct. 1627 , 12 L.Ed.2d 496 ; Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Guido
v.
United States Micele v. United States Sakal, alias Sacko v. United States Pellegrini v. United States and McGarry v. United States
No. 882; No. 883; No. 1052; No. 1146; No. 1155.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1964.
377 U.S. 952
Julius Lucius Echeles for petitioner in No. 882., Alvin W. Block for petitioner in No. 883., Petitioners pro se in Mise. Nos. 1052, 1146 and 1155., Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard W. Schmude for the United States.
Published

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 327 F. 2d 222.