RICHTER

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• The Coca-Cola Co. v. The Atchison, 608 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …her reading comports with the plain meaning of the words used. A specific tariff provision takes precedence over a more general one where ambiguity exists. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. United States, 510 F. 2d 644, 650 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2656, 45 L.Ed.2d 694. The waterborne charge is a general charge which partially defrays port terminal expenses while the maximum absorption tariff is a more specific provision which sets an exact maximum amount of wharfage expense which th…
• United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1980)
  …ine test. This is a rehash of the previous contention. Luschen concedes that conflicting expert testimony is admissible and that the jury decides how much weight to accord each. See United States v. Franks, 511 F. 2d 25, 33 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2654, 45 L.Ed.2d 693 (1975). There is evidence in the record that the gold chloride microcrystalline test can differentiate between 1-cocaine and d-cocaine. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion. Luschen’s fourth conte…
• United States v. Wayne Scaife (83-5666), 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1984)
  …oore and Stidman in consideration for their cooperation, this court has held that consent to have conversations recorded is not vitiated by governmental promises of leniency. See United States v. Franks, 511 F. 2d 25, 30-31 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2654, 45 L.Ed.2d 693 (1975). Third, Vessells argues that the tape recordings used by the government contained so much inaudible material that they should not have been admitted. The law is clear that a district court’s decision to admit t…