KOLPACHNIKOFF

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Standard OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Moore, 251 F.2d 188 (9th Cir. 1957)
  …esult. This is because the objecting party can, through cross-examination, expose to the jury the asserted deficiencies of the hypothetical question as asked. Dunagan v. Appalachian Power Co., 4 Cir., 33 F. 2d 876, 68 A.L.R. 1393, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 606, 50 S.Ct. 152, 74 L.Ed. 649. It is for this reason that it is usually held that defects in such a question go not to the competency of the evidence, but merely affect its weight. Permanente Metals Corp. v. Pista, 9 Cir., 154 F. 2d 568, 569. A hypot…
• McSHAN v. Sherrill, 283 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1960)
  …laim; and they have attempted to prove that the change in the river bed was perceptible and sudden, it having been agreed that accretion occurs only upon a gradual and imperceptible shifting of a river. See State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 1923, 280 U.S. 606, 43 S.Ct. 221, 67 L.Ed. 428; State of Nebraska v. State of Iowa, 1892, 143 U.S. 359, 12 S.Ct. 396, 36 L.Ed. 186. Appellants have deeds to certain of the lands which the river passed over in its westward migration and can trace title to said lands st…
• Chandler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 119 F.2d 623 (3d Cir. 1941)
  …corporate property. Ordinarily such action would be beyond their power. Noel v. Parrott, 4 Cir., 15 F. 2d 669, certiorari denied, 273 U.S. 754, 47 S.Ct. 457, 71 L.Ed. 875; Wolter v. Johnston, 3 Cir., 34 F. 2d 598, 68 A.L.R. 1211, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 606, 50 S.Ct. 153, 74 L.Ed. 650; Fletcher, Cyc.Corp., Perm.Ed., § 2939. Reasoning such as that advanced in the Hillman case that a gilt is presumed because of the family relationship between the parties overlooks, we think, the fact that a corporation i…