BURKS

v.

KENTUCKY

Citator

Cited By

• Smith v. United States, 273 F.2d 462 (10th Cir. 1959)
  …without substantial injury to litigants. 21 C.J.S. Courts §§ 213, 214. See Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, 99 L.Ed. 233; California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin, 9 Cir., 245 F. 2d 44, certiorari denied, 353 U.S. 961, 77 S.Ct. 863, 1 L. Ed.2d 910; Polisnik v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 259 F. 2d 951. Considering, then, the points on appeal, the defendant first urges that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a bill of particulars which re…
• Cal. State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc., 490 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1989)
  …ct of ancient vintage and doubtful urgency in a case where the question decided is not properly presented. Although the majority may well be correct that California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin, 245 F. 2d 44 (CA9) (Goggin II), cert. denied, 353 U. S. 961 (1957), is not good law, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of an issue that is res judicata in this litigation. The history of this case, notably missing from the majority opinion, has its genesis in 1980, when China Peak Resort…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Ross, 464 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …our Court held that sentencing under the old, superseded provisions, pursuant to which the prosecutions were initiated, was proper. See also United States v. Taylor, 123 F. Supp. 920 (S.D.N.Y.1954), aff’d, 227 F. 2d 958 (2 Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 961 (1957). [*381] Ross also attacks his sentence on the ground that the district court erred in not considering him for disposition under Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 4251-55 (1970). Disposition under NARA,…