RATH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

• United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1986)
  …ates v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F. 2d 1181, 1185-1186 (CA4 1982), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1105 (1983); United States v. Kahan & Lessin Co., 695 F. 2d 1122, 1124 (CA9 1982) (per curiam); United States v. Rath, 406 F. 2d 757, (CA6), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 920 (1969). I have found no Rule 6(d) cases in which a per se rule based on the ultimate verdict at trial has been applied. Cf. also United States v. Lane, 474 U. S. 438, 447-448 (1986) (disapproving use of per se rules in harmless error analysis). T…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Computer Scis. Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir. 1982)
  …antial threat thereof” so that “dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate.” 5 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365, 101 S.Ct. 665, 668, 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981). Cf. United States v. Rath, 406 F. 2d 757 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 920, 89 S.Ct. 1196, 22 L.Ed.2d 453 (1969) (“A technical violation of Rule 6(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, occurred when an attorney who was a stranger to this action unintentionally interrupted the grand jury proceedings by entering the court…
• Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., Inc., 494 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1974)
  …the sufficiency of the evidence. Only in this way can that agency act to safeguard the public in the first instance against fraudulent patent monopolies.” In Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. F. T. C., 401 F. 2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 394 U.S. 920, 89 S.Ct. 1195, 22 L.Ed.2d 453 (1969), we stated: “The Patent Office, not having testing facilities of its own, must rely upon information furnished by applicants and their attorneys. Pfizer and Cyanamid, like all other applicants, stood before the…