SHERWIN
v.
UNITED STATES; AND SHERIDAN V. UNITED STATES
SHERWIN
UNITED STATES; AND SHERIDAN V. UNITED STATES
312 U.S. 654
Supreme Court of the United States (1941)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 30 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
On the Government’s confession of error, its motion to reverse is granted. The judgments are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with directions to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, and petitio'ners’ assignment of error with respect to the argument of the Assistant United States Attorney without regard to any technical deficiency in its phraseology.
Messrs. Earl C. Demoss and Charles M. Trammell, Jr. for petitioners. Solicitor General Biddle, Assistant Attorney General Rogge, and Messrs. William W. Barron, J. Albert Woll, and William J. Connor for the United States.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1945)…o. v. Wilson, 209 U. S. 275, 276; Bates v. Miller, 133 F. 2d 645, 647-648 ; 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2496. And the rule obtains in criminal as well as in civil cases. Sheridan v. United States, 112 F. 2d 503, 504, rev’d on other grounds 312 U. S. 654; Edwards v. United States, 7 F. 2d 357, 359; Baldwin v. United States, 72 F. 2d 810, 812. Why then must we disregard Cramer’s admissions at the trial? Why must we assume, as does this Court, that those admissions are out of the case and that our de…
-
Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)…2); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States, supra; Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 25 L.Ed, 68 (1878); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., supra; Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 61 S.Ct. 235, 312 U.S. 654 (1940); United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966); Fauber v. United States, 37 F.Supp. 415, 93 Ct.Cl. 11 (1941); Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor, 252 F. 2d 589 (9th Cir. 1957); Carl Braun, Inc. v. Kendall-Lamar Corp., 116 F.…
-
Gaunt v. United States, 184 F.2d 284 (1st Cir. 1950)…ot an “attempt” under that subseetion. Since the hypothesis is in error, there is no need to discuss these arguments. . We are unable to discern any contrary indication in the per cilrialn decisions of the Supreme Court in Sherwin v. United States, 312 U.S. 654, 61 S.Ct. 618, 85 L.Ed. 1104 and Hemphill v. United States, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S.Ct. 729, 85 L. Ed. 1106, upon which the defendant relies. . “ ‘Wilfully’ means knowingly, and with a bad heart, and a bad intent; it means having the purpose to cheat or…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence