PEDERSON

v.

STEWART-WARNER CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• Orthenell Alfredo Russell v. State, 614 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
  …f Criminal Procedure which was inconsistent with the rule, which took effect after the date of the enactment establishing the Federal Rules of Evidence. As noted by the court in United States v. Martinez, 536 F. 2d 1107 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 505, 50 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), rule 410 as originally proposed never became effective, in that it was superseded by rule 11(e)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective August 1, 1975. Rule 410, as originally enacted, provided as fol…
• United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …appeal. Here there simply was no error of any kind to be classified as plain or harmless. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52. See, e. g., United States v. Nelson, 574 F. 2d 277, 280 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Martinez, 536 F. 2d 1107 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 505, 50 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); United States v. Long, 323 F. 2d 468 (6th Cir. 1963); Pharr v. United States, 48 F. 2d 767 (6th Cir. 1931); Hodge v. United States, 13 F. 2d 596 (6th Cir. 1926). . Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(6) provides: Inadmissibil…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Dual Mfg. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Burris Indus., Inc., 619 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …at least at the time of the en banc rehearing there was no serious dispute that determination of the question of obviousness under patent law is a question of law. Pederson v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 536 F. 2d 1179, 1180 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct. 505, 50 L.Ed.2d 597, and cases cited therein. The appellees, however, on the en banc rehearing have taken the position that even though it be acknowledged that obviousness is a question of law, this does not compel the conclusion that a re…