STANDLEY

v.

UNITED STATES; FRANCO V. UNITED STATES; MAGEE ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA; DANDY V. MYERS, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; KARL V. RICHARDSON, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Cinderella Career & Finishing Schs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
  …, unless it was “arbitrary or clearly wrong.” We cannot say that it was, particularly in view of the consumers’ testimony adduced at the hearing. Giant Food Inc. v. FTC, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 231-232, 322 F. 2d 977, 981-982 (1963), cert. dismissed, 376 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 1121, 12 L.Ed.2d 82 (1964) (emphasis added). From this and other statements of the court in the Giant Food case it is quite clear that the use of the words “the Commission” related to the Federal Trade Commission, not to the Federal Trade…
• Berry v. United States, 412 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1969)
  …idate the entry of a guilty plea. We are aware of the inclinations of some courts to suggest that the ineligibility for parole should be similarly categorized. In Smith v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 324 F. 2d 436, 441 (1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 978, 11 L.Ed.2d 975 (1964), the court held that “eligibility for parole is not a ‘consequence’ of a plea of guilty, but a matter of legislative grace.” The same conclusion was reached in Trujillo v. United States, 377 F. 2d 266 (5 Cir. 196…
• Pac. Molasses Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 356 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1966)
  …dice which might have resulted was overcome by the 40-day continuance and the right to recall witnesses for further cross-examination. Giant Food, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 322 F. 2d 977 (1963), cert. dismissed Rule 60, 376 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 1121, 12 L.Ed. 2d 82 (1964), and E. B. Muller & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 142 F. 2d 511 (6 Cir. 1944), are cited as authority. However, these cases were not instances where the petitioner had requested and been granted before the st…