LYNCH ET AL.

v.

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP. ET AL.; RABE V. WASHINGTON; STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS ET AL. V. EVERS ET AL.; C. D. CONSTRUCTION CORP. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; GREENBERG V. UNITED STATES; GIPE, GUARDIAN V. DEMPSEY ET AL.; MOODY V. MOODY; LINDAUER V. OKLAHOMA CITY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ET AL.; ARNESON PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. V. BLUMENFELD; HARDEE V. NELSON, WARDEN; LIPSCOMB V. UNITED STATES; COLLINS V. MICHIGAN; ALCALA V. WYOMING; BURNS V. COLUMBIA PICTURES INTERNATIONAL CORP. ET AL.; BIBLE V. ARIZONA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1972)
  …supplementary memorandum, the Solicitor General joined with Lipscomb’s petition for rehearing, urging that the case should be remanded to the district court in light of Tucker. Although the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition for rehearing, 406 U.S. 911, 92 S.Ct. 1613, 31 L.Ed.2d 823 (1972), this is, of course, not dispositive of the merits of the case. Neither this court nor the district court has had the opportunity to consider this claim by petitioner since the Tucker decision until now. The pr…
• United States v. Alessandrello, 637 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …e harmless error. Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 40, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 45 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975); United States v. Alper, 449 F. 2d 1223, 1232-33 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 988, 92 S.Ct. 1248, 31 L.Ed.2d 453 (1972), rehearing denied, 406 U.S. 911, 92 S.Ct. 1605, 31 L.Ed.2d 822 (1972). In Alper, the defendants were not present during supplemental instructions to the jury, although their counsel were there. No objection was raised at the time, but on appeal defendant-appellant argued that his…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Blue v. Craig, 505 F.2d 830 (4th Cir. 1974)
  …ting for § 1983 considerations statutorily-based and constitutionally-based claims. And recently and subsequent to Wynn, the Court in Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (1972), 405 U.S. 538, 543, n. 7, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 1117, 31 L.Ed.2d 424, reh. denied, 406 U.S. 911, 92 S.Ct. 1611, 31 L.Ed.2d 822, after summarizing much of the legislative history discussed at length in Wynn, con- [*835] eluded with this definitive explication of the scope of 1983: “ * * * Although the oi’iginal substantive provision had protec…