WILLIAMS ET AL.

v.

MILLER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1948)
  …ate court may not, under some circumstances, require his personal presence; but only that his presence is not essential to its jurisdiction to proceed with the case.” In Goldsmith v. Sanford, 132 F. 2d 126, cert. den. 318 U. S. 762, rehearing denied 318 U. S. 799, the Court said: “. . . We know of no precedent for taking a prisoner from the penitentiary that he might be present to argue in person his appeal from an adverse judgment on habeas corpus. ... If there be power to order the removal which was reques…
• United States v. Rohleder, 157 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1946)
  …rule of the above cases under the 1918 amendment to indicate that pecuniary loss was a vital element of the claim. Closest to the.present situation is United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443, rehearing denied 318 U.S. 799, 63 S.Ct. 756, 87 L.Ed. 1163. That was a civil suit by an informer under Sections 3490-3494, 31 U.S. C.A. §§ 231-235. The District Judge correctly held that it must rest on violations of Section 5438 as that section read when it was incorporated in…
• Cummings v. Moore, 202 F.2d 145 (10th Cir. 1953)
  …438; Kennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U.S. 667, 9 S.Ct. 202, 32 L.Ed. 576. And an invalid patent cannot be infringed. M. Swift & Sons v. W. H. Coe Manufacturing Co., 1 Cir., 102 F. 2d 391; Cridlebaugh v. Rudolph, 3 Cir., 131 F. 2d 795, certiorari denied, 318 U.S. 799, 63 S.Ct. 855, 87 L.Ed. 1147; International Carbonic Engineering Co. v. Natural Carbonic Products, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 248, affirmed, 9 Cir., 158 F. 2d 285; Miehle Printing Press 6 Manufacturing Co. v. Publication Corp., 7 Cir., 166 F. 2d 615. In the…