PETERSON ET AL.

v.

THARP

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …er of law that discovery antedated June 25, 1972. Randolph’s knowledge, the important factor, cannot be imputed to AF because he was alleged to be a participant in the fraud against it. See Peterson v. Tharp, 299 F. 2d 434 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122 (1962). The accounts of Randolph’s passing on any of his information are too vague to establish a date of discovery. Nor does the record show when the 10K report was filed or if any AF officers actually became aware of…
• United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …hey have testified. Langel v. United States, supra at 963. It is also within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a sequestration order has been violated. United States v. Brooks, 303 F. 2d 851, 853 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122 (1962). It is clear from the record that the trial court viewed the sequestration order to be limited to the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom. We note that in requesting the order, the appellants’ counsel did no…
• United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …rcumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court. Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92, 14 5. Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Brooks, 303 F. 2d 851 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 889, 83 S.Ct. 184, 9 L.Ed.2d 122 (1962). Most authorities agree that “particular circumstances” sufficient to justify exclusion of a witness are indications that the witness has remained in court with the “consent, connivance, procurement or knowledge”…