SUNBEAM CORPORATION

v.

WENTLING

Citator

Cited By

• Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1959)
  …States v. Hoffman, 185 F. 2d 617 (five months), reversed 341 U. S. 479; Healey v. United States, 186 F. 2d 164 (four sentences of one year or more and one $10 fine reversed) ; United States v. Greenberg, 187 F. 2d 35 (five-month sentence), reversed 341 U. S. 944; Carlson v. United States, 209 F. 2d 209 (18-month sentence vacated); Hooley v. United States, 209 F. 2d 219 (nine-month sentence vacated); O’Keefe v. United States, 209 F. 2d 223 (nine-month sentence vacated); Maffie v. United States, 209 F. 2d 225…
• Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1955)
  …equire reversal of the conviction on those counts, as to them I need not reach the issue of whether Emspak was adequately apprised that the Subcommittee was insisting upon his answers, despite the claim of privilege. See Greenberg v. United States, 341 U. S. 944 (1951), 343 U. S. 918 (1952); Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944 (1952), and the discussion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Coffey, supra. 1 consider that the 10 questions involved in Counts 59-68 of the ind…
• United States v. Coffey, 198 F.2d 438 (3d Cir. 1952)
  …held that the district court properly punished him for refusing to answer. However, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in the light of its disposition of the Hoffman case. Greenberg v. United States, 341 U.S. 944, 71 S.Ct. 1013, 95 L.Ed. 1369. Upon such reconsideration we still thought the Hoffman and Greenberg cases could and should be distinguished. United States v. Greenberg, 3 Cir., 1952, 192 F. 2d 201. Our conception of the significance of the Supreme…