GALVAN

v.

PRESS, OFFICER IN CHARGE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC. V. NEBRASKA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT ET AL.; OHIO EX REL. HAWKE V. BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO; HILLGREN V. KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. ET AL.; BOWMAN, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. BOWMAN; BRESLIN V. NEW YORK; MCRAE V. WOODS, ACTING HOUSING EXPEDITER; MILLER V. THORN ET UX.; WHEELER V. UNITED STATES; NATION V. CALIFORNIA; HARDING V. CAVANAUGH ET AL.; HUGHES V. HEINZE, WARDEN; TATE V. CALIFORNIA; NEIGUT V. UNITED STATES; NEAL V. RANDOLPH, WARDEN; SHELLHAMMER, GENERAL ADMINISTRATRIX, V. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of Am., 251 F.2d 801 (9th Cir. 1957)
  …Fa,ct On the first day of the trial, counsel for the appellants started to discuss the case of Kwikset Locks, Inc., v. Hillgren, 9 Cir., 1954, 210 F. 2d 483, certiorari denied 1954, 347 U.S. 989, 74 S.Ct. 852, 98 L.Ed. 1123, rehearing denied 1954, 348 U.S. 852, 75 S.Ct. 19, 99 L.Ed. 671, certiorari denied 1954, 348 U.S. 855, 75 S. Ct. 78, 99 L.Ed. 673. The following colloquy ensued: “The Court: There is no law in patent cases. A patent case is a question of fact. “Mr. Kolisch: Pardon ? “The Court: I sa…
• United States v. Young, 463 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  …v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 318-319, 319 F. 2d 717, 719-720 (1963) ; Wheeler v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 166 n. 17, 211 F. 2d 19, 26 n. 17 [*949] (1953) , cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1019, 74 S.Ct. 876, 98 L.Ed. 1140, reh. denied, 348 U.S. 852, 75 S.Ct. 21, 99 L.Ed. 671 (1954) . . The responsibility for elucidating the applicable law for the jury rests on the trial judge, and that duty cannot be abdicated to counsel’s argument. See Wheeler v. United States, supra note 41, 93 U.S.App.D.C.…
• Bartley v. United States, 319 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  …. The crucial character of this distinction has been recognized and emphasized by this Court. In Wheeler v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 166, 211 F. 2d 19, 26 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1019, 74 S.Ct. 876, 98 L.Ed. 1140, rehearing denied, 348 U.S. 852, 75 S.Ct. 21, 99 L.Ed. 671 (1954), we said that proper implementation of this statute included an explicit admonition to the jury by the court at the time a prior inconsistent statement is admitted, and also an instruction at the close of the trial,…