TINSLEY
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND
TINSLEY
CITY OF RICHMOND
368 U.S. 18
Supreme Court of the United States (1961)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Sol Mayer, 556 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1977)…ent in the prosecution.” 423 F. 2d at 1108. Because the district court’s errors are of constitutional proportions, reversal of Mayer’s conviction is required unless the errors were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”. Chapman v. California, 1966, 368 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824,17 L.Ed.2d 705; United States v. Alston, 5 Cir. 1972, 460 F. 2d 48, 54, cert. denied, 1872, 409 U.S. 871, 93 S.Ct. 200, 34 L.Ed.2d 122.10 After carefully reviewing the record, we are unable to say that the errors were so inconsequentia…
-
United States v. Valdez, 594 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1979)…e against the appellants on the other essential elements, and the fact that the materiality of the statements was so clearly established, the failure to submit the issue to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 368 U.S. 18 (1967). See United States v. Kostoff, 585 F. 2d 378, 380 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. East, 416 F. 2d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1969). No reasonable jury could have reached any other conclusion. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS Appellants contend that the cumula…