How cited: Houston Belt & Terminal Railway v. United States · Go Syfert

Houston Belt & Terminal Railway v. United States (1958)

green · 7 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 3 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Indeed, the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding “harmless constitutional error” specifically reject the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” approach and stress instead that the relevant inquiry is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Chapman v. California, supra, 356 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827 , citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 1963, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171, 173 .
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
Only 22 strong public policies weigh against disclosure.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 23 677, 682 (1958) (internal citation omitted).
internal citation omitted
Quote Authority · S.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. 22 United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399 (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 23 677, 682 (1958) (“[W]e start with a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of 24 the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.”)).
“[W]e start with a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of 24 the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.”