CLINTON

v.

JOSHUA HENDY CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Reinders Bros., Inc. v. Rain Bird E. Sales Corp., 627 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …Emmerich’s presence at the hearing is more troublesome. Although there is some fragmentary authority for the handling of motions to quash on an ex parte basis (see Clinton v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 285 F. 2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1960), certiorari denied, 366 U.S. 932, 81 S.Ct. 1654, 6 [*52] L.Ed.2d 391),5 the better practice is one in which the party seeking the subpoena has the opportunity to contest the motion to quash. The district court’s departure from the preferred practice in this case cannot be condoned…
• Beardslee v. United States, 387 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …ndian. Disestablishment thus is not effected by an allotment to an Indian or by conveyance of the Indian title to a non-Indian. Hilderbrand v. United States, 287 F. 2d 886 (10 Cir. 1961), affirming 190 F.Supp. 283, 285-287 (D.Kan.1960), cert, denied 366 U.S. 932, 81 S.Ct. 1655, 6 L.Ed.2d 391; Hilderbrand v. Taylor, 327 F. 2d 205 (10 Cir. 1964); Williams v. United States, 215 F. 2d 1 (9 Cir. 1954), cert. denied 348 U.S. 938, 75 S.Ct. 338, 99 L.Ed. 735; Guith v. United States, 230 F. 2d 481 (9 Cir. 1956); In…
• Hilderbrand v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 205 (10th Cir. 1964)
  …hout jurisdiction over the crime. This court held otherwise in one of the former proceedings prosecuted by Hilderbrand. United States v. Hilderbrand, D.C.Kan., 190 F.Supp. 283, aff’d Hilderbrand v. United States, 10 Cir., 287 F. 2d 886, cert. denied 366 U.S. 932, 81 S.Ct. 1655, 6 L.Ed.2d 391, reh. denied 368 U.S. 872, 82 S.Ct. 65, 7 L.Ed.2d 73. 18 U.S.C. § 1151 defines Indian country as “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstan…