DEGREGORY

v.

WYMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; BAKER V. UNITED STATES; CHRISTY V. UNITED STATES; CROSS V. TUSTIN, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, ET AL.; CROSS V. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.; PITTS V. UNITED STATES; BAKER V. UNITED STATES; PITTS V. UNITED STATES; ALPAR V. PERPETUAL BUILDING ASSOCIATION ET AL.; WAGNER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; BLACK V. CITY NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF KANSAS CITY, EXECUTOR; KELLEY V. CITY OF RICHMOND; BARNES V. NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Burl A. Sawyers, 423 F.2d 1335 (4th Cir. 1970)
  …United States, 297 F. 2d 754 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 955, 82 S.Ct. 1605, 8 L.Ed.2d 820 (1962); Christy v. United States, 261 F. 2d 357, 17 Alaska 107 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 919, 79 S.Ct. 1438, 3 L.Ed.2d 1535, reh. denied, 361 U.S. 857, 80 S.Ct. 47, 4 L.Ed.2d 96 (1959) ; and whether the judge made inquiry as to the division of the jury, Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 345 (1926); Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 25 S.Ct. 243, 49 L.Ed. 482 (19…
• Friedman v. United States, 374 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …legislative intent as it has been disclosed by the Acts of Congress. Terry v. United States, 131 F. 2d 40, 44 (8 Cir. 1942); Pitts v. United States, 263 F. 2d 353 (9 Cir. 1959), cert. den. 360 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 1457, 3 L.Ed.2d 1547, rehearing den. 361 U.S. 857, 80 S.Ct. 47, 4 L.Ed.2d 97; and Gonzales v. United States, 286 F. 2d 118, 123 (10 Cir. 1961), cert. den. 365 U.S. 878, 81 S.Ct. 1028, 6 L.Ed.2d 190. While It is my understanding that there is no substantial disagreement concerning the interpretatio…
• Acton Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 670 F.2d 377 (1st Cir. 1982)
  …Cir. 1981), and does not necessarily preclude us from overruling a decision once we are convinced it is erroneous. Helms Bakeries v. Commissioner, 263 F. 2d 642 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 903, 79 S.Ct. 1285, 3 L.Ed.2d 1255, rehearing denied, 361 U.S. 857, 80 S.Ct. 44, 4 L.Ed.2d 96 (1959). In this instance, our initial decision was made in a preliminary order without benefit of full argument. Reconsideration so soon after the initial decision prejudices no one and does not significantly encourage t…