CRAWFORD

v.

STEVENS, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, 166 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
  …irected verdict in a case tried by jury. The distinction between dismissals under Rule 1.35(b) and directed verdicts in jury trials is clearly stated in United States v. Continental Can Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1963, 217 F.Supp. 761, 766, app’l pend’g. 375 U.S. 893, 84 S.Ct. 173, 11 L.Ed.2d 123. Where, as here, the trial court, sitting without a jury, determines the facts from the plaintiff’s evidence and concludes that, upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, its order dismiss…
• United States v. Cont'l CAN Co., 378 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1964)
  …the Government’s case. United States v. Continental Can Co., 217 F. Supp. 761 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). We noted probable jurisdiction to consider the specialized problems incident to the application of § 7 to interindustry mergers and acquisitions.2 375 U. S. 893. We reverse the decision of the District Court. I. The industries with which this case is principally concerned are, as found by the trial court, the metal can industry, the glass container industry and the plastic container industry, each produc…
• Coleman v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1964)
  …to all questions concerning the alleged jury discrimination and denied the motion. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction, finding that petitioner’s claim of jury discrimination was not supported by any evidence. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 893. Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder of a white mechanic, the apparent motive being robbery. There were no witnesses to the killing and the evidence of guilt was circumstantial, based largely upon expert testimony given by the State…