MATTHIES

v.

SEYMOUR MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Clement S. Smith v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Morrilton Sch. Dist. NO. 32, 365 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1966)
  …hem all before the court”, within the language of Rule 23 (a) as it read prior to its revision effective July 1, 1966. Thaxton v. Vaughan, 321 F. 2d 474, 478 (4 Cir. 1963); Matthies v. Seymour Mfg. Co., 270 F. 2d 365, 368 (2 Cir. 1959), cert. denied 361 U.S. 962, 80 S.Ct. 591, 4 L.Ed.2d 544; Giordano v. Radio Corp. of America, 183 F. 2d 558, 561 (3 Cir. 1950); Association for Preservation of Freedom of Choice v. Wadmond, 215 F.Supp. 648, 651 (S.D.N.Y.1963); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 23.05 (2d ed. 196…
• United States v. The Montreal Tr. Co., 358 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1966)
  …d expensive litigation. See Sen.Rep. No. 2434, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); 1958 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm. News, pp. 5255, 5256; Matthies v. Seymour Manufacturing Co., 270 F. 2d 365 (2 Cir. 1959), rehearing denied, 271 F. 2d 740 (en banc), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 962, 80 S.Ct. 591, 4 L.Ed.2d 554 (1960), and order of this Court of January 13, 1959 allowing appeal from order of district court, 23 F.R.D. 64, to the extent it denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; In re Heddendorf, 263 F. 2d…
• United States v. Sherriff, 546 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …s comments were in reply to defense arguments and were not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, they were not improper. See United States v. Henley, 5 Cir., 1974, 502 F. 2d 585; Montford v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F. 2d 395, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 962, 80 S.Ct. 591, 4 L.Ed.2d 543 (1960).3 Furthermore, even assuming that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, any error was cured by the court’s repeated instructions to the jury that the defendant had no burden to produce any evidence or to call an…