LOCAL UNION NO. 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA ET AL.

v.

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO.; HOLMAN V. MATTHEWS, COMMISSIONER OF BANKS OF WISCONSIN; DANIELS ET AL. V. THOMAS; GULF, MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.; KIEFER V. UNITED STATES; TERRY V. SEEGMILLER; BAUDHUIN V. WISCONSIN EX REL. MATTISON; WEISS V. UNITED STATES; MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS V. PASARELL ET AL.; BLOCH V. UNITED STATES; BRINKLEY V. TEXAS; MORGAN V. CITY OF NEW YORK; SHOTKIN V. TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF FLORIDA ET AL.; WILLIAMS V. GEORGIA; SPEARS V. TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC.; GWYTHER V. TALBOTT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL.; GRIMM V. WASHINGTON; WELCH V. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF REEVES COUNTY, TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Fenwick v. United States, 252 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  …135, 176 F. 2d 45, 47. We are aware that other Courts of Appeals have taken a different view. See, e. g., Bloch v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 226 F. 2d 185, 188, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 948, 76 S.Ct. 323, 100 L.Ed. 826, rehearing denied, 1956, 350 U.S. 977, 76 S.Ct. 432, 100 L.Ed. 847, but we do not understand their decisions to have been related to a statute comparable to our Code section, supra. The Government argues that there is no reversible error because appellant’s conviction has since been aff…
• Singleton v. Estelle, 492 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1974)
  …2d 328, 331.6 The court distinguished two cases relied upon by petitioner’s appeal, Avery v. Georgia, 1953, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244, and Williams v. Georgia, 1955, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161, rehearing denied, 1956, 350 U.S. 977, 76 S.Ct. 443, 100 L.Ed. 847 on grounds (a) that there were Negroes on the panel from which the jurors were selected in appellant’s case (in Avery there had been none, in Williams only a token number; in appellant’s case 20 of 150 on the original pa…
• United States v. Sinor, 238 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1956)
  …here, as here, knowledge of the compensation service was relied upon as notice to the insurance service. United States v. Kiefer, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 228 F. 2d 448, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 933, 76 S.Ct. 305, 100 L.Ed. 815, rehearing denied 350 U.S. 977, 76 S.Ct. 431, 100 L.Ed. 847. The point is without merit. [*277] The judgment must be reversed. In appellee’s brief we are told that the stipulation, prepared by Government counsel, was signed by appellee’s counsel “with the idea in mind” that the…