CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

v.

EVA CHINN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Langford v. United States, 178 F.2d 48 (9th Cir. 1949)
  …n v. California, supra, 332 U.S. 46, at page 50, 67 S.Ct. 1672; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 114, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97. . As in Brooks v. United States, 9 Cir., 8 F. 2d 593; Robilio v. United States, 6 Cir., 291 F. 975, certiorari denied 263 U. S. 716, 44 S.Ct. 137, 68 L.Ed. 522, and Morgan v. United States, 7 Cir., 31 F. 2d 385. Cf. Wilson v. United States, supra. . As in United States v. Di Carlo, 2 Cir., 64 F. 2d 15, and Milton v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 394, 110 F. 2d 556. . The record s…
• Latses v. United States, 45 F.2d 949 (10th Cir. 1930)
  …to the trial court, for again the matter is confided to the discretion of the trial court. Wigmore on (Evidence, § 1839, Note 4; Hood v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 23 F.(2d) 472; Robilio v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 291 F. 975, certiorari denied, 263 U. S. 716, 44 S. Ct. 137, 68 L. Ed. 522. No showing was made for the application of the rule, and no abuse of discretion is disclosed. Error is assigned because of the admission of evidence of a conversation between the agents and one Puluos, who was jointl…
• United States v. Bell, 351 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1965)
  …the manager of the claimed insured was permitted to testify that one Bennett, after a telephone conversation with Stone, agent of the insurer, said that the insurance was in effect. See also, Tuckerman v. United States, 291 F. 958, C.A.6, cert. den. 263 U.S. 716, 44 S.Ct. 137, 68 L.Ed. 522; Overland Const. Co. v. Sydnor, 70 F. 2d 338, C.A.6. Cases cited by counsel for the defendant are not in point. In Brown v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 270, 152 F. 2d 138, the testimony in question was a story that a…