MARTIN
v.
UNITED STATES
MARTIN
UNITED STATES
342 U.S. 872
Supreme Court of the United States (1951)
Caution
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. James J. Savini v. Jackson, 250 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1957)…Ed. 986; Quicksall v. People of State of Michigan, 339 U.S. 660, 70 S.Ct. 910, 94 L.Ed. 1188; and United States ex rel. Turpin v. Warden of Green Haven Prison, 2 Cir., 190 F. 2d 252, certiorari denied sub nom. Turpin v. Warden of Green Haven Prison, 342 U.S. 872, 72 S.Ct. 116, 96 L.Ed. 656. As able counsel for the appellee points out, none of these cases pertained to the situation present in this appeal: occasional points of resemblance, in our judgment, are more than counterbalanced by factors characterist…
-
Elliott Ashton Welsh, II v. United States, 404 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1968)…a registrant when he says his position has already been stated. Appellant’s hearing was short because he had nothing further to say.5 No unfairness appears in this respect. See Martin v. United States, 190 F. 2d 775, 778-779 (4th Cir.), cert. den., 342 U.S. 872, 72 S.Ct. 115, 96 L.Ed. 656 (1951). Appellant’s contention that the local board failed to pass upon his 1-0 claim is based upon a letter he wrote after his personal appearance. In that letter he states: “Then one of the board members said ‘we don’t…
-
Uffelman v. United States, 230 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1956)…ave been duly safeguarded. The judgment is affirmed. . The spelling “adviser” is preferred by Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1955). . See also Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 1951, 190 F. 2d 775, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 872, 72 S.Ct. 115, 96 L. Ed. 656; United States v. De Lime III, 3 Cir., 1655, 223 F. 2d 96, 101; United States ex rel. McCarthy v. Cook, 3 Cir., 1955, 225 F. 2d 71, 73.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence