WAKIN

v.

KEENAN, WORKHOUSE SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• The State Hwy. Comm'n OF Mo. v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1973)
  …cting within the zone of their permissible discretion but are abusing their discretion or otherwise acting contrary to law . . . .” See also Udall v. Wis consin, Colorado and Minnesota, 113 U.S. App.D.C. 183, 306 F. 2d 790, 793 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 552, 9 L.Ed.2d 539 (1963). See generally Byse and Fiocca, Section 1361 of The Mandamus And Venue Act Of 1962 And “Nonstatutory” Judicial Review Of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 308 (1967). However, it is apparent that any i…
• United States v. Grow, 394 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1968)
  …you for any information you may be able to give me Your Truly Thomas F. O’Connell . Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); United States v. American Stevedores, Inc., 310 F. 2d 47 (2 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 552, 9 L.Ed.2d 539 (1963); United States v. Crosby, 294 F. 2d 928, 952 (2 Cir. 1961), cert. denied, Mittleman v. United States, 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 583 (1962); Steckler v. United States, 7 F. 2d 59, 60 (2 Cir. 1925). . S…
• United States v. Mendel, 746 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …nted and a new trial of Mendel must be ordered. B. M & S That Mendel was denied a fair trial does not in this case absolve the corporate defendant M & S. See United States v. American Stevedores, Inc., 310 F. 2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 552, 9 L.Ed.2d 539 (1963). It was admitted that M & S, acting as it must through its employees, made and used the reports and statements on which the indictment was brought, and that it delivered them to Albany. Its defense rested entirely…