SOUTHERN BOULEVARD R. CO.

v.

NEW YORK CITY

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Diggs, 649 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …o testify subsequently comes forward to offer testimony exculpating a co-defendant, the evidence is not “newly discovered.” McAteer v. United States, 148 F. 2d 992 (5th Cir. 1945); Coplin v. United States, 88 F. 2d 652, 665 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 301 U.S. 703, 57 S.Ct. 929, 81 L.Ed. 1357 (1937); see United States v. Jacobs, 475 F. 2d 270, 286, n.33 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821, 94 S.Ct. 116, 131, 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973). Moreover, there has been no showing of diligence on the part of appellant Oliv…
• Charles Hughes & Co., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 139 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1943)
  ….Ct. 56. As for Rule X-15C1-2, its words are almost identical with those of § 17(a) of the Securities Act, a section which has already been sustained as against the claim of vagueness. Coplin v.'United States, 9 Cir., 88 F. 2d 652, certiorari denied 301 U.S. 703, 57 S.Ct. 929, 81 L.Ed. 1357. This similarity makes the first claim of error appear frivolous, indeed, since no allegation is made that § 17 (a) of- the Securities Act is invalid and since the revocation can be based on the violation of that section…
• United States v. Charnay, 537 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …dges for that matter — “must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its [*357] application,”3 does not require that we declare this section 10(b) void for vagueness. Cf. Coplin v. United States, 88 F. 2d 652 (9th Cir. 1937), cert. denied, 301 U.S. 703, 57 S.Ct. 929, 81 L.Ed. 1357 (1937) (very similar language of section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 held not vague); Hughes v. SEC, 139 F. 2d 434 (2d Cir. 1943) (section 17(a) not vague). We heed not the command: “No one may be required at pe…