SIMONSEN

v.

EMMERLING, TRUSTEE; EMMERLING, TRUSTEE, V. SCHROEDER; AND EMMERLING, TRUSTEE, V. SCHROEDER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• United States v. The Southland Corp. & S. Richmond Dole & Eugene Mastropieri, 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985)
  …on except the one mentioned in the Rule can justify the sealing of an indictment. There is a surprising dearth of authority upon the subject. In United States v. Michael, 180 F. 2d 55, 57 (3 Cir.1949), cert. denied sub nom. United States v. Knight, 339 U.S. 978, 70 S.Ct. 1023, 94 L.Ed. 1383 (1950), decided only three years after the Criminal Rules were adopted, the court stated in an opinion by Judge Maris: Criminal Procedure Rule 6(e) authorizes indictments to be kept secret during the time required to t…
• United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1985)
  …mitations period. United States v. Muse, 633 F. 2d 1041 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 984,101 S.Ct. 1522, 67 L.Ed.2d 820 (1981); United States v. Michael, 180 F. 2d 55 (3d Cir.1949), cert. denied, sub nom., United States v. Knight, 339 U.S. 978, 70 S.Ct. 1023, 94 L.Ed. 1383 (1950). Therefore, the government’s actions in requesting the sealing of the original indictment are consistent with those contemplated under the aegis of Fed.R.Cr.P. 6(e)(4). Defendants also assert that the government…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Mitchell, 769 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1985)
  …e government to complete an investigation properly, and can toll the statute of limitations when the investigation must extend [*1548] beyond the statutory period. See, e.g., United States v. Michael, 180 F. 2d 55, 56-57 (3d Cir.1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 978, 70 S.Ct. 1023, 94 L.Ed. 1383 (1950). The most careful treatment of the problem of an indictment sealed past the limitations period is found in United States v. Muse, 633 F. 2d 1041 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 152…