SOUTHEAST TEXAS CHAPTER OF NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
  …CrPR 1.190(h) was substantially patterned. See, e. g., Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; United States v. Watts, 2d Cir. 1963, 319 F. 2d 659; Gilbert v. United States, 9th Cir. 1962, 307 F. 2d 322, cert. denied 372 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 1095, 10 L.Ed.2d 132. The reason for the new rule is logical because the purpose in not allowing a motion to suppress to be made for the first time at trial is so that the trial judge does not have to stop the trial, remove the jury, and…
• Amsler v. United States, 381 F.2d 37 (9th Cir. 1967)
  …re was an unreasonable search and seizure. United States v. Saka, 3 Cir., 339 F. 2d 541. Irwin freely consented to the search and thereby waived any constitutional rights he might have had. Gilbert v. United States, 9 Cir., 307 F. 2d 322, cert. den. 372 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 1095, 10 L.Ed.2d 132. It is claimed on behalf of Amsler that the federal court was without jurisdiction to try him for the reason that there was no evidence of interstate transportation of Sinatra, Jr. prior to his consent to the transpor…
• O'Dell Marshall v. United States, 409 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1969)
  …er Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, we are empowered, in the exerpise of sound discretion, to take notice of “plain errors,” even if committed without objection. Gilbert v. United States, 307 F. 2d 322 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 1095, 10 L.Ed.2d 132 (1962). We generally believe, however, that we should invoke Rule 52(b) in the very exceptional situation only, situations wherein it appears to be necessary in order to prevent miscarriage of justice or to preserve…