SCHIFFMAN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (52 total)

• Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)
  …be allowed to take notes and use them in the deliberation process is a question within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Rhodes, 631 F. 2d 43 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Riebold, 557 F. 2d 697 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 860, 98 S.Ct. 186, 54 L.Ed.2d 133 (1977). The jurors were informed by the court that note-taking was optional, and instructed that a juror’s note-taking in no way gave him or her authority over the others on the panel. We reject appellant’s assertion t…
• Stephen C.S. HU v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …ted in the ordinary case because it serves little purpose, other than delay, to engage in a de novo consideration of such an inherently indeterminate decision. Condex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp., 553 F. 2d 735, 737 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 860, 98 S.Ct. 185, 54 L.Ed.2d 133 (1977). Perhaps if the original decision in this case were ours to make, we would have denied the motion to change venue, because the factual scenario at bar presents a close case, which no doubt required close eonsid-…
• Grp. Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., Inc., 440 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1979)
  …e made aggressive use of their authority over provider contracts as a means of controlling premium rates. See Frankford Hospital v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia, 417 F. Supp. 1104, 1106 (ED Pa. 1976), aff’d, 554 F. 2d 1253 (CA3), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 860 (1977); State of Michigan, Commissioner of Ins., No. 77-R-101 (Mar. 3, 1977); State of Illinois, Dept. of Ins., Hearing No. 1607 (Apr. 8, 1977). This may also explain why the Federal Government, in programs in which it functions as a health insurer,…

  ← 1 / 2 →