HERZOG

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (41 total)

• United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1963)
  …low. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, 52(b). There is no “plain error” unless the “charge may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant [s] of a fair trial.” Herzog v. United States, 235 F. 2d 664 (9th Cir. in banc), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 844, 77 S.Ct. 54, 1 L.Ed.2d 59 (1956). That is not the case here.14 E. Limitations on Cross-Examination of Smith Appellants complain that they were unduly restricted in their cross-examination of the witness Smith. We find no merit in the contention.…
• United States v. Scott, 425 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …r. 1968). Rule 52(b) should be used only in unusual and extraordinary situations to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial proceedings. Herzog v. United States, 235 F. 2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 844, 77 S.Ct. 54, 1 L.Ed.2d 59; Reisman v. United States, 409 F. 2d 789, 791 (9th Cir. 1969). The majority recognizes the rule that a claim of error is waived, unless a proper objection is taken in the trial court. Rule 30, F.R.Crim.P. Lopez v. United…
• Hostrop v. Bd. OF Junior Coll. Dist. NO. 515, 523 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …e of conspiracy in a civil action is merely the string whereby the plaintiff seeks to tie together those who, acting in concert, may be held responsible for any overt act or acts.” Rutkin v. Reinfeld, 229 F. 2d 248, 252 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 844, 77 S.Ct. 50, 1 L.Ed.2d 60 (1956). As stated in Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 458 (N.D.Ga.1972), aff’d, 480 F. 2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam): “For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a conspiracy is not a vital element. Nevertheless, a conspira…