MCCALL ET AL.

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (60 total)

• United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984)
  …hich could then entertain a motion to remand the case. See United States v. Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F. 2d 724 (CA5 1978); United States v. Phillips, 558 F. 2d 363 (CA6 1977) (per curiam); United States v. Ellison, 557 F. 2d 128, 132 (CA7), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 965 (1977); United States v. Hays, 454 F. 2d 274, 275 (CA9 1972); United States v. Smith, 433 F. 2d 149, 151-152 (CA5); United States v. Lee, 428 F. 2d 917, 923 (CA6), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1017 (1972); Guam v. Inglett, 417 F. 2d 123, 125 (CA9 1969);…
• United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …r a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. In this circuit, such a motion could properly be entertained by the district court even though an appeal was pending. See United States v. Ellison, 557 F. 2d 128, 132 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 965, 98 S.Ct. 504, 54 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Given defense counsel’s close relationship and past vacation trips with the prosecutor and judge, the evidence supporting the recusal motion was not “newly-discovered evidence” within the meaning of Rule 33; had…
• Bateman Eichler v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1985)
  …d., 652 F. 2d 808, 815 (CA9 1981). The respondents also alleged various other federal claims and pendent state-law claims that are not before us. See, e. g., Tarasi v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 555 F. 2d 1152 (CA3) (allowing defense), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 965 (1977); Malamphy v. Real-Tex Enterprises, Inc., 527 F. 2d 978 (CA4 1975) (per curiam) (sustaining submission of defense tó jury); Woolf v. S. D. Cohn & Co., 515 F. 2d 591, 601-605 (CA5 1975) (rejecting defense on facts of case), on rehearing, 521 F…