HANRATTY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1963)
  …o late when not made before trial. And the lower federal courts have uniformly held that an objection to the petit jury array is not timely if it is first raised after verdict. See, e. g., Hanratty v. United States, 218 F. 2d 358, 359, cert. denied, 349 U. S. 928; United States v. Klock, 210 F. 2d 217, 220; Higgins v. United States, 160 F. 2d 222, 223, cert. denied, 331 U. S. 822; United States v. Peterson, 24 F. Supp. 470. Petitioners have not advanced any reasons for overturning this settled course of dec…
• Int'l Union of United Brewery v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 298 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
  …estion involves various gradations of status may be seen from the following: National Labor Relations Board v. Swift & Company, 240 F. 2d 65 (9 Cir.1957); National Labor Relations Board v. Osbrink, 218 F. 2d 341, 343, 344 (9 Cir.1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 928, 57 S.Ct. 770, 99 L.Ed. 1259 (1955); National Labor Relations Bd. v. Parma Water Lifter Co., 211 F. 2d 258, 260, 261 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 829, 75 S.Ct. 51, 99 L.Ed. 654 (1954); Precision Fabricators v. National Labor Relations Bd., 204 F…
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., 398 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1968)
  …section 8 (a) (1). Respondent’s initial contention is that the latter two allegations were not properly before the trial examiner, since they were not included in the original charge. In NLRB v. Osbrink, 218 F. 2d 341 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 928, 75 S.Ct. 770, 99 L.Ed. 1259 (1955), this court was faced with a similar argument. There we stated that section 10(b) of the Act3 “ ‘has been uniformly interpreted to authorize inclusion within the complaint of amended charges — filed after the six…