PHILIP CAREY MANUFACTURING CO. (MIAMI CABINET DIVISION)

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (65 total)

• Bailey v. United States, 410 F.2d 1209 (10th Cir. 1969)
  …ffense in the language of the statute, the indictment stated the purpose of the kidnaping. It clearly was adequate and not misleading. United States v. Bentley, 6 Cir., 310 F. 2d 685. See, Mims v. United States, 10 Cir., 332 F. 2d 944, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888, 85 S.Ct. 158, 13 L.Ed.2d 92; Cathcart v. United States, 10 Cir., 244 F. 2d 74, cert. denied, 354 U.S. 924, 77 S.Ct. 1387, 1 L.Ed.2d 1439. The purpose of the kidnaping need not be for reward or pecuniary gain. United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 84…
• United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671 (10th Cir. 1981)
  …ly, directly and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense. Hamling, supra, 418 U.S. at 117, 94 S.Ct. at 2907; Mims v. United States, 332 F. 2d 944, 946 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888, 85 S.Ct. 158, 13 L.Ed.2d 92. We think that the indictment in this case, which essentially follows the language of § 287, meets this requirement. It is true, as defendant points out, that 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 1001 were originally part of the same s…
• Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., Inc., 494 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1974)
  …64, 34 L.Ed.2d 315 (1972). Novelty and unobviousness are separate and distinct tests, and both must be presented in a patentable design. In Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. and Supply Co., 332 F. 2d 406, 414-415 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 888, 85 S.Ct. 160, 13 L.Ed.2d 93 (1964), we stated: “We must be careful to make the distinction between novelty and invention in relation to anticipation. Novelty and invention are two separate tests, and anticipation belongs only with novelty. This Co…

  ← 1 / 2 →