MOORE ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; MCKEE V. UNITED STATES; B. FORMAN CO., INC., ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; WENGER V. UNITED STATES; SAMUELS V. UNITED STATES; KATZ V. UNITED STATES; WATTS V. TEAGLE ET AL.; POOLEY V. MISSISSIPPI; MONSANTO CO. V. ROHM & HAAS CO.; GORSALITZ V. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORP.; BLANKNER V. CITY OF CHICAGO; CURRY V. TEXAS; PHELAN V. BRIERLEY, WARDEN; ESGATE V. ENGLISH, SHERIFF; HOOD V. BURNETT ET AL.; STANLEY V. TEXAS; FOGGY V. ARIZONA ET AL.; LEVY V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ET AL.; MATTHEWS V. TEXAS; ANSLEY V. GEORGIA; ALERS V. SUPERIOR COURT OF PUERTO RICO
MOORE ET AL.
UNITED STATES; MCKEE V. UNITED STATES; B. FORMAN CO., INC., ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; WENGER V. UNITED STATES; SAMUELS V. UNITED STATES; KATZ V. UNITED STATES; WATTS V. TEAGLE ET AL.; POOLEY V. MISSISSIPPI; MONSANTO CO. V. ROHM & HAAS CO.; GORSALITZ V. OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORP.; BLANKNER V. CITY OF CHICAGO; CURRY V. TEXAS; PHELAN V. BRIERLEY, WARDEN; ESGATE V. ENGLISH, SHERIFF; HOOD V. BURNETT ET AL.; STANLEY V. TEXAS; FOGGY V. ARIZONA ET AL.; LEVY V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ET AL.; MATTHEWS V. TEXAS; ANSLEY V. GEORGIA; ALERS V. SUPERIOR COURT OF PUERTO RICO
409 U.S. 899
Supreme Court of the United States (1972)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
United States v. Welebir, 498 F.2d 346 (4th Cir. 1974)…amount of amphetamine was found.” But, “[P]roof of manufacturing does not require that the drug actually was produced.” United States v. Moore (6th Cir. 1971) 452 F. 2d 569, 573, cert. denied 407 U.S. 910, 92 S.Ct. 2435, 32 L.Ed.2d 684, reh. denied 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 101, 34 L.Ed.2d 158. As a matter of fact, though, the evidence for the Government was to the effect that the defendant, in his “experiment” had already manufactured a minimum of 400 doses of amphetamine and that, with the available supplie…
-
United States ex rel. Walter Paul McGOUGH v. Hewitt, 528 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1975)…the petitioner’s appearance and demeanor at the trial in September of 1971. Cf. United States ex rel. Phelan v. Brierley, 453 F. 2d 73 (3d Cir. 1971) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2875, 3 L.Ed.2d 762, rehearing denied, 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 182, 34 L.Ed.2d 155 (1972). In Pate v. Robinson, supra, the Illinois procedure required that a jury be impaneled to make the determination of competency. Obviously,- it would have been impossible for a jury at a later date to benefit from…
-
In re Inez Jeanette Lewis. Inez Jeanette Lewis v. Sears, 845 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. 1988)…m that the jury reasonably could find to be compensatory’ ” for the plaintiff’s loss. Id. at 132 (quoting Gorsalitz v. Olin Matheson Chem. Corp., 456 F. 2d 180, 181 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2463, 32 L.Ed.2d 807, reh’g denied, 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 108, 34 L.Ed.2d 159 (1972)). See also Green v. Francis, 705 F. 2d 846, 850 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Jones v. Wittenberg University, 534 F. 2d 1203, 1212 (6th Cir.1976); Brewer v. Uniroyal, Inc., 498 F. 2d 973, 977-78 (6th Cir.1974).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence