UNITED STATES

v.

U. S. THERMO CONTROL CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (33 total)

• United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980)
  …ersal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474 (1951); NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U. S. 333, 350-351 (1938); Morgan v. United States, 298 U. S. 468 (1936); Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Vincent, 375 F. 2d 129, 132 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 839 (1967). We conclude that the due process rights claimed here are adequately protected by § 636 (b)(1). While the district court judge alone acts as the ultimate decisionmaker, the statute grants the judge the broad discretion to accept, reject, or…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Sands v. Louie L. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1973)
  …econd Circuit has suggested, “Congress could not have intended to require three judges to be assembled when decision could not possibly go in any manner save one.” Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Vincent, 2 Cir. 1967, 375 F. 2d 129, 131 n. 1, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 839, 88 S.Ct. 63, 19 L.Ed.2d 102. See also Kirkland v. Wallace, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F. 2d 413. Despite the evident distaste with which the federal courts and the commentators view three-judge court jurisdiction, this series of limiting principles has been…
• McLucas v. DeCHAMPLAIN, 421 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1975)
  …to have access to the classified materials that will be in issue at the court-martial, subject to the same restrictions imposed on civilian counsel. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vincent, 375 F. 2d 129, 131 n. 1 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 839 (1967). Our description of appellee’s argument, of course, does not intimate any approval of the radical expansion of Bailey that it appears to represent. There is no question that our appellate jurisdiction as to the access issue depends entirely…