COEN ET AL.

v.

HARRISON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …oes not agree may be tried again.”). Upon a review of the record, we determine that there was no error in the manner in which the trial court received the jury verdicts. See United States v. DiLapi, 651 F. 2d 140, 146-47 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1427, 71 L.Ed.2d 648 (1982); United States v. Ross, 626 F. 2d 77, 80-81 (9th Cir.1980). We have closely examined the remaining various allegations of error made by appellants. They are all without merit and warrant no discussion. V. CON…
• United States v. Burke, 700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …maintain that their convictions should be reversed because the court’s response to the jury inquiry was unduly coercive. The appellants rely principally on this Court’s decision in United States v. DiLapi, 651 F. 2d 140 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1427, 71 L.Ed.2d 648 (1982), to support their Rule 31(b) claim. In DiLapi, the jury reported during deliberations that it had reached verdicts on some of the defendants, but did not express at that time a preference for reporting a partia…
• Hollinger v. Titan Cap. Corp., 914 F.2d 1564 (9th Cir. 1990)
  …ld that generally respondeat superior may not serve as a basis for secondary liability under Rule 10b-5, but carves out an exception for broker-dealers and accounting firms. Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 649 F. 2d 175, 181 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1427, 71 L.Ed.2d 648 (1982). The Seventh, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits have apparently not spoken on this issue.…

  ← 1 / 3 →