GARFIELD A. STREET

v.

EMILY M. STUBBLEFIELD, EXECUTRIX

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Kushner, 135 F.2d 668 (2d Cir. 1943)
  …the denial of the motion for a bill of particulars must stand in the absence of a showing that appellant was unfairly surprised or prejudiced at the trial by the Government’s evidence. Kanner v. United States, 2 Cir., 21 F. 2d 285, certiorari denied 275 U.S. 564, 48 S.Ct. 122, 72 L.Ed. 428; Peck v. United States, 7 Cir., 65 F. 2d 59, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 701, 54 S.Ct. 229, 78 L.Ed. 603. Actually, also, the bill partook more of the nature of a fishing expedition than of a reasonable request for inform…
• The Herald Co. v. Seawell, 472 F.2d 1081 (10th Cir. 1972)
  …ere with regard to the conspiracy .... I find the evidence is insufficient to show that there was abuse of corporate judgment in connection with the allocation, .... . Bisbee v. Midland Linseed Prod. Co., 19 F. 2d 24 (8th Cir. 1927), cert. denied, 275 U.S. 564, 48 S.Ct. 121, 72 L.Ed. 428; Langlois v. B. F. Merchant Inv. Co., 101 Colo. 438, 73 P. 2d 1385 (1937).…
• Everpure, Inc. v. Cuno, Inc., 875 F.2d 300 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
  …closure, and filter), in which case only the filter would be replaced. The latter circumstance is not present here. .Everpure puts much store by Automotive Equipment Co. v. Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co., 19 F. 2d 990 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 275 U.S. 564, 48 S.Ct. 121, 72 L.Ed. 428 (1927). We agree with the courts in Payne, which ignored, and Electric Auto-Lite, which declined to follow, Connecticut Telephone.…