BERRY

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• Williams v. State, 174 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
  …f v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 311 F. 2d 185; United States v. Langston, U.S.D.C.W.D.Pa. 1961, 194 F.Supp. 891. See also Cauley v. United States, 9 Cir. 1961, 294 F. 2d 318; Carnes v. United States, 10 Cir. 1960, 279 F. 2d 378, cert. denied, 1960, 364 U.S. 846, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed.2d 69; Johnson v. United States, 9 Cir. 1959, 267 F. 2d 813, cert. denied, 1961, 366 U.S. 931, 81 S.Ct. 1654, 6 L.Ed.2d 390.…
• United States v. Hunt, 513 F.2d 129 (10th Cir. 1975)
  …in determining whether a judicial act is a final judgment (and thus appealable) “this court puts importance upon the intention of the judge . . . ” and favorably quoted from Carnes v. United States, 279 F. 2d 378, 380 (10th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 846, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed.2d 69 (1960): When the Judge acts in a manner which clearly indicates his intention that the act shall be the final one in the case, and' a notation of the act has been entered on the docket, the time to appeal begins to run un…
• United States v. 1, 466 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1972)
  …new. A final judgment is a court’s act which disposes of the matter under consideration in a manner which clearly indicates the judge’s intention that the act is a final one. Carnes v. United States, 279 F. 2d 378, 379-380 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 846, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1960). An immaterial change in a judgment previously entered does not toll the time in which review must be sought. FTC v. Minneapolis Honeywell Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211, 73 S.Ct. 245, 97 L.Ed. 245 (1952). The record in th…