BARTANEN

v.

ARIZONA

Citator

Cited By (40 total)

• Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1989)
  …ns on section 636(b)(3) are that the duties be consistent with the Constitution and federal laws and that they not be specifically excluded by section 636(b)(1)’”), cert. denied sub nom. Chromalloy American Corp., Federal Malleable Div. v. Marshall, 444 U. S. 884 (1979)); Ford, 824 F. 2d, at 1441 (Rubin, J.). See, e. g., Hearings on S. 3475 et al. before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., and 90th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 109 (1966-196…
• Ne. Tel. Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 651 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …ntent of achieving monopoly or unreasonably restraining trade. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 252, 60 S.Ct. 811, 857, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 600 F. 2d 414, 417 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 884, 100 S.Ct. 175, 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979). The Sherman Act “does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability.” Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 378, 33 S.Ct. 780, 782, 57 L.Ed. 1232 (1913). Thus, anticomp…
• United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 825 F.2d 572 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …nds for reversal, it must consider the defendant’s challenge to this sufficiency of the evidence to ensure that the prohibition against double jeopardy is upheld. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 600 F. 2d 414, 416 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 884, 100 S.Ct. 175, 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); United States v. Sneed, 705 F. 2d 745, 748-49 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Marolda, 648 F. 2d 623, 624 (9th Cir.1981). . Of course, if the evidence is insufficient without the improperly admitted evidence,…