ODOM

v.

UNITED STATES; SLAKMAN V. FLORIDA; CIMINI V. UNITED STATES; O'MALLEY V. UNITED STATES; MARTIN, DBA SILKO NEW IMPROVED PRODUCTS CO. V. CROWN ZELLERBACH CORP.; COUSINS V. UNITED STATES; SHOLE V. O'FERRALL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, ET AL.; KAMSLER V. BELLOWS, BELLOWS & MAGIDSON; SHOLE V. HOWARD ET AL., JUDGES

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Rameriz, 284 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
  ….App.1971, 248 So. 2d 666. The [*244] court, in Reis, cited the decision in Odom v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F. 2d 45, cert. granted 399 U.S. 904, 90 S.Ct. 2203, 26 L.Ed.2d 559, writ dism’d 400 U.S. 23, 91 S.Ct. 112, 27 L.Ed.2d 122, reh. den. 400 U. S. 984, 91 S.Ct. 363, 27 L.Ed.2d 396. In Odom v. United States, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit specifically held: “ . The absence of an arrest warrant, even though there may be sufficient time to obtain one, does not invalidate an otherwise va…
• United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1981)
  …rance of the common objective which, in this case, was the distribution of an obscene movie Deep Throat in interstate commerce. United States v. Cimini, 427 F. 2d 129 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 137, 27 L.Ed.2d 151 reh. den., 400 U.S. 984, 91 S.Ct. 364, 27 L.Ed.2d 396 (1971). These defendants as the jury found had full knowledge of the details of the obscene film and of community standards. The government, however, was not required to prove that each conspirator was familiar with e…