STOVES, INCORPORATED

v.

TENNESSEE ENAMEL MANUFACTURING CO.

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Gurleski v. United States, 405 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1968)
  …erning the motives behind the granting of the pardon. In the absence of doubt being cast on the validity of these convictions, the pardon is not a bar. Richards v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 192 F. 2d 602, 30 A.L.R.2d 880 (1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 946, 72 S.Ct. 560, 96 L.Ed. 703. Smith further argues that the convictions were too remote. The matter of remoteness is another matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Goddard v. United States, 131 F. 2d 220 (5 Cir. 1942). Here, while on…
• Blunt v. United States, 244 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
  …the order or by the slightest inquiry could have ascertained it.” 237 F. 2d at page 646. . The Government cites Gonzalez v. United States, 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F. 2d 825; and Huff v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 192 F. 2d 911, certiorari denied 1952, 342 U.S. 946, 72 S.Ct. 560, 96 L.Ed. 703. See, contra, our recent decision in Conway v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. —, 243 F. 2d 39. . Emphasis here and hereinafter supplied. . In an affidavit of July 23, 1956, Blunt says in substance…
• Pinkney v. United States, 363 F.2d 696 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
  …dant as to convince the jury that he is an habitual lawbreaker who should be punished and confined for the general good of the community.” Richards v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 357, 192 F. 2d 602, 605, 30 A.L.R.2d 880 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 946, 72 S.Ct. 560, 96 L.Ed. 703 (1952). Even cautionary instructions “cannot prevent the jury from considering prior actions in deciding whether appellant has committed the crime charged. The courts need not rest on the assumption that juries can compar…