SANDERS ET AL.

v.

HALL ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Alaimo, 297 F.2d 604 (3d Cir. 1961)
  …ived is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. E. g., United States v. Montgomery, 126 F. 2d 151 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 681, 62 S.Ct. 1268, 86 L.Ed. 1754 (1942); United States v. Hirsch, 74 F. 2d 215 (2d Cir. 1934), cert. denied, 295 U.S. 739, 55 S.Ct. 653, 79 L.Ed. 1686 (1935). We do not see that that discretion was abused, and we think what the judge did here is supported by authority. See People v. Avery, 35 Cal.2d 487, 218 P. 2d 527 (1950); 6 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1869, 1873 (3d ed.…
• LEE v. United States, 91 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1937)
  …al of the court to suspend the trial and order a mistrial, and to order the United States attorney to file a bill of particulars. These were matters within the sound discretion of the trial judge. U. S. v. Hirsch (C.C.A.) 74 F.(2d) 215, cert. denied 295 U.S. 739, 55 S.Ct. 653, 79 L.Ed. 1686; Wong Tai v. U. S., 273 U.S. 77, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545. We find no abuse of discretion in this respect. A number of errors are assigned in general terms to the admission of evidence and remarks of the judge conside…
• Baltimore Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Pecos Mercantile Co., 122 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1941)
  …for a continuance or postponement is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the action taken thereon is not ground for reversal unless that discretion is abused. Sanders v. Hall, 10 Cir., 74 F. 2d 399, certiorari denied, 295 U.S. 739, 55 S.Ct. 653, 79 L.Ed. 1686; Southern Kansas Stage Lines v. Gibson, 10 Cir., 87 F. 2d 23; George v. Wiseman, 10 Cir., 98 F. 2d 923. A defendant represented by two competent firms of attorneys cannot depend exclusively upon one of them to make all t…