CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,
v.
KIND ET AL., TRUSTEES; AND KIND ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,
KIND ET AL., TRUSTEES; AND KIND ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
332 U.S. 808
Supreme Court of the United States (1947)
Caution
Cited by 22 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1978)…dant’s case or to call Lafitte as a court witness. See United States v. Doe, 488 F. 2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 991, 94 S.Ct. 2400, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974); Steinberg v. United States, 162 F. 2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 808, 68 S.Ct. 108, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947). The defendant next objects to the admission of allegedly improper opinion evidence. When the defendant first approached the car in which Cl Rickey Campbell and DEA Agents Felts and Harry were [*541] seated, Campb…
-
United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1976)…ed States v. Lutwak, 195 F. 2d 748, 754-55 (7th Cir. 1952), aff’d, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593, rehearing denied, 345 U.S. 919, 73 S.Ct. 726, 97 L.Ed. 1352 (1953); Steinberg v. United States, 162 F. 2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 808, 68 S.Ct. 108, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947). Appellant also contends that the district court did not give the jury an adequate limiting instruction regarding the FBI statements. He may be correct in arguing that the court’s brief instruction was insufficien…
-
United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979)…tates v. Rice, 550 F. 2d 1364, 1371 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 954, 98 S.Ct. 479, 54 L.Ed.2d 312 (1977). Similarly, it is within his discretion to call witnesses. See Steinberg v. United States, 162 F. 2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 808, 68 S.Ct. 108, 92 L.Ed. 386 (1947); Fed.R.Evid. 614(a).12 Considering the collateral nature of the testimony that Dorminey sought to elicit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-ex [*1227] amination of the witness from…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence