MCCULLOUGH TOOL CO. ET AL.

v.

WELL SURVEYS, INC., ET AL.; FIELDSMITH V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS; LORD ET AL. V. HELMANDOLLAR ET AL.; PERATI ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; W. W. I. Z., INC., ET AL. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.; CARR V. UNITED STATES; MCGRUDER V. MASSACHUSETTS; DAILEY V. MARYLAND; DURONIO V. PRASSE, CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER; COLLINS V. UNITED STATES; KHABIRI V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (91 total)

• United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …orrect, the denial of such a request is not error. United States v. Billingsley, 474 F. 2d 63, 65 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 819, 94 S.Ct. 42, 38 L.Ed.2d 51 (1973); United States v. Kelly, 349 F. 2d 720, 759-760 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966); Grandsinger v. United States, 332 F. 2d 80, 82 (10th Cir. 1964); Carbo v. United States, 314 F. 2d 718, 745 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953, 84 S.Ct. 1625, 12 L.Ed.2d 498 (1964); Huff v. United Stat…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1969)
  …218 (2 Cir. 1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951), and, more recently, in United States v. Van Allen, 208 F.Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Kelly, 349 F. 2d 720, 777-779 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966). See also United States v. Flynn, 216 F. 2d 354, 385-386 (2 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 909, 75 S.Ct. 295, 99 L.Ed. 713 (1955). Granting, as Judge Tyler did, that the Jury Selection and [*893] Service Act…
• United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1976)
  …to rule that the admission of out-of-court statements under an exception to the hearsay rule does not violate the confrontation rights of the accused. As Judge Medina stated in United States v. Kelly, 349 F. 2d 720, 770 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966): “The application of * * * virtually all the exceptions to the hearsay rule, does not involve any deprivation of the right of confrontation as the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted and construed.” Accordingly…

  ← 1 / 2 →