BASS

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1967)
  …o in order to clarify the language charging conspiracy, United States v. Knox Coal Company, 3 Cir., 347 F. 2d 33 (1965), cert, den., 382 U.S. 904, 86 S.Ct. 239, 15 L.Ed.2d 157 (1965) ; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir., 317 F. 2d 499 (1963), cert, den., 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 60 (1963). We have searched for the reason for this anomaly, but have found none other than dead forms ruling from the grave. The Knox and Reno cases, which simply state a rule concerning allegations of overt acts, rely upo…
• United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …nterstate commerce, the indictment is sufficient because “the allegation of acts which would amount to commission of the substantive offense was merely descriptive of the conspiracy.” Reno v. United States, 317 F. 2d 499, 502 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 60 (1963). Under the liberal rules of interpretation which are to be applied here, we hold that the necessary elements of a violation of Section 1201(c) can be found in the language of Count One.3 [*363] Referring to the f…
• McCULLOUGH Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …us for experimental purposes is not a public use within the intent and meaning of the statute. Merrill v. Builders Ornamental Iron Co., 10 Cir., 197 F. 2d 16; Nicholson v. Carl W. Mullis Engineering and Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 315 F. 2d 532, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed. 2d 60. During an experimental period, the inventor may freely use his device “ * * * for the purpose of testing the machine * * * ”, Smith and Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249, 256, 8 S.Ct. 122, 126, 31 L.Ed. 141, or “…