WISEMAN, DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
v.
BARBY ET UX.; COMMONWEALTH COATINGS CORP. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. ET AL.; HETTLEMAN ET AL. V. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE ET AL.; MCMANIGAL V. SIMON ET AL.; ELECTRIC FURNACE CORP. V. DEERING MILLIKEN RESEARCH CORP.; HICKS ET AL. V. PHYSICAL THERAPISTS EXAMINING BOARD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES; WALKER V. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; HARRIS V. RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT; ELKSNIS V. UNITED STATES; MANCILLA V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; BUTTERFIELD V. GAZELLE
WISEMAN, DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BARBY ET UX.; COMMONWEALTH COATINGS CORP. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. ET AL.; HETTLEMAN ET AL. V. CHICAGO LAW INSTITUTE ET AL.; MCMANIGAL V. SIMON ET AL.; ELECTRIC FURNACE CORP. V. DEERING MILLIKEN RESEARCH CORP.; HICKS ET AL. V. PHYSICAL THERAPISTS EXAMINING BOARD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES; WALKER V. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR; HARRIS V. RHAY, PENITENTIARY SUPERINTENDENT; ELKSNIS V. UNITED STATES; MANCILLA V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; BUTTERFIELD V. GAZELLE
390 U.S. 1036
Supreme Court of the United States (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schatten v. United States: Gen. Leonard Chapman, 419 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1969)…nd is not a means of testing the conditions of admittedly lawful custody. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-291, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969); Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335, 336, 88 S.Ct. 962, 19 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1968), rehearing denied, 390 U.S. 1036, 88 S.Ct. 1420, 20 L.Ed.2d 299. See, e. g., Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). It is unnecessary for this Court to decide whether or not habeas corpus is available where a reservist is transferred to active dut…
-
LaCHAPPELLE v. Moran, 699 F.2d 560 (1st Cir. 1983)…that the case would be dismissed if she did not answer the defense counsel’s question. The judge was under an obligation to remind the witness of her duty to answer the question. State v. Robertson, 102 R.I. 623, 232 A. 2d 781 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1036, 88 S.Ct. 1436, 20 L.Ed.2d 296 (1968). Because her testimony was extremely critical to the state’s case and could have been stricken if she continued to refuse to answer the question, see Gordon v. Indusco Management Corp., 164 Conn. 262, 320 A. 2d…