FOLEY ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES; ROBERT L. GRUEN, INC. V. UNITED STATES; SHANNON & LUCHS CO. V. UNITED STATES; AND BOGLEY, INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (50 total)

• Harmon W. Shields v. Nevin G. Smith, 404 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
  …irectly to the public servant, while there is no such requirement under the federal statute. While appellant’s reading of the federal statute is correct in this respect, e. g., United States v. Cerilli, 603 F. 2d 415, 420 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. den., 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 728, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980), it is not necessary under the Florida statute, either, that the benefit flow into the public servant’s hands. The definition of “benefit” in Section 838.014(1), Fla.Stat., includes “the doing of an act benefici…
• Bowmar Instrument Corp. v. Fid. Elecs., Ltd., Inc., 466 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …The federal counterpart, Fed.R.Evid. 1006, provides that only the underlying source material be made available to other parties, not that the summary itself be made available. See United States v. Foley, 598 F. 2d 1323 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 727, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980).…
• United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982)
  …ower Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce . .. . ” Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215, 80 S.Ct. 270, 272, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960). Accord, e.g., United States v. Cerilli, 603 F. 2d 415, 423 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 728, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980). See also United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 98 S.Ct. 1112, 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978); United States v. Green, 350 U.S. [*591] 415, 420-21, 76 S.Ct. 522, 100 L.Ed. 494 (1956). In United States v. Staszeuk, 517…

  ← 1 / 5 →