WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING CO.

v.

CROSLEY CORPORATION

Citator

Cited By (33 total)

• Rasmussen Drilling, Inc. v. Kerr-McGEE Nuclear Corp. & Kerr-McGee Corp., 571 F.2d 1144 (10th Cir. 1978)
  …nited States v. Pennett, 496 F. 2d 293 (10th Cir. 1974); Ellis v. State of Oklahoma, 430 F. 2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1970); cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1010, 91 S.Ct. 1260, 28 L.Ed.2d 546 (1971); Baker v. Hudspeth, 129 F. 2d 779 (10th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 681, 63 S.Ct. 201, 87 L.Ed. 546 (1942). The admissibility of evidence is discretionary with the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, Tulsa, Okl. v. Ellerd, 503 F. 2d 1193 (10th Cir. 19…
• Odell v. Hudspeth, 189 F.2d 300 (10th Cir. 1951)
  …consideration of the case. State v. Howland, 157 Kan. 11, 138 P. 2d 424; State v. Haines, 128 Kan. 475, 278 P. 767; State v. McNeil, 59 Kan. 599, 53 P. 876; see also Baker v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 129 F. 2d 779, 782, certiorari denied Baker v. Hunter, 317 U.S. 681, 63 S.Ct. 201, 87 L.Ed. 546. There is no showing that the separation was without order or permission of the court or that it was not properly instructed prior to separation. It is not shown that a request was made by defendant or his counsel that t…
• Cavness v. United States, 187 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1951)
  …5. The modern view, to which we subscribe, is that jurors should be kept together to prevent any improper influence upon their consideration of the case. Baker v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1942, 129 F. 2d 779, 782, certiorari denied, Baker v. Hunter, 1942, 317 U.S. 681, 63 S.Ct. 201, 87 L.Ed. 546. Separation of the jury “in such a way as to expose them to tampering” or any improper influence, after a criminal case has been submitted to them, is reversible error. See Mattox v. United States, 1892, 146 U.S. 140, 14…