BROWN, DOING BUSINESS AS BROWN ENGINEERING CO.,

v.

MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

• United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985)
  …conflict with our fundamental principles of liberty and justice. The suppression of evidence favorable to Almeida was a denial of due process.” Id., at 820. Similarly, in United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F. 2d 763, 765 (CA3), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 875 (1955), the District Court had denied a petition for habeas corpus after finding that certain evidence of defendant’s drunkenness at the time of the offense in question was not “vital” to the defense and did not require disclosure. 123 F. Supp. 759,…
• Mitchell v. Lublin, 358 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1959)
  …f those persons individually. Throughout the action,- these defendants have been treated as a single business entity which we shall refer to herein as respondent. Mitchell v. Brown Engineering Co., 224 F. 2d 359 (C. A. 8th Cir.), certiorari denied, 350 U. S. 875. The section provides: “The provisions of sections 206 and 207 of [this] title shall not apply with respect to (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of out…
• United States v. Keogh, 391 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. 1968)
  …would subscribe to all that was there said; we agree with the result since the undisclosed evidence was highly important and could well have led to a different verdict. In United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F. 2d 763 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 875, 76 S.Ct. 120, 100 L.Ed. 773 (1955), also cited by petitioner, the district court had found that the prosecutor was aware of the evidence which the Court of Appeals rightly characterized as “substantial.” Id. at 767. . The above discussion of speci…