MARCUS ET AL.

v.

NEW YORK; TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORP. V. BENSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE; SWARTHOUT V. OLUND; BASYAP, INC., ET AL. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY ET AL.; HUTTER ET UX. V. CITY OF CHICAGO; REILLY V. CAULDWELL-WINGATE CO., INC., ET AL.; RICHERSON V. UNITED STATES; NIX V. UNITED STATES; HOUP V. UNITED STATES; HITCHCOCK V. GOMES, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1976)
  …t the criteria of “inherently prejudicial publicity” is ordinarily committed to the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Nix (5th Cir. 1972), 465 F. 2d 90, 96, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1013, 93 S.Ct. 455, 34 L.Ed.2d 307 (1972), reh. denied, 409 U.S. 1119, 93 S.Ct. 918, 34 L.Ed.2d 704. . See, also, United States v. Sorce (4th Cir. 1962), 308 F. 2d 299, 301, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 1635, 12 L.Ed.2d 500 (1964). . Wansley v. Slayton, supra (at 92-3); United States v. Abbott Laboratories (…
• United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …ion of evidence of defendant’s failure to comply with court order not to shave prior to lineup); United States v. Nix, 465 F. 2d 90, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1013, 93 S.Ct. 455, 34 L.Ed.2d 307 (1972), reh’g denied, Nix v. United States, 409 U.S. 1119, 93 S.Ct. 918, 34 L.Ed.2d 704 (1973) (comment on and jury instructions regarding defendant’s refusal to provide handwriting exemplars were proper); Owens v. Wolff, 532 F.Supp. 397, 399 (D.Nev.1981) (approving instruction that evidence of the defenda…
• Herzog v. Secretary OF Health, 686 F.2d 1154 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …id not have an opportunity to address the question of whether it had jurisdiction over these constitutional questions. This issue was not raised below, and will not be considered on appeal. Olund v. Swarthout, 459 F. 2d 999 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1119, 93 S. Ct. 899, 34 L.Ed.2d 703 (1972); Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc. v. Califano, 571 F. 2d at 330 n.2. We would be extremely hesitant to conclude that section 205(h) precludes all judicial review of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims.…