The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More320 F.2d 912, The CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al.v.BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM., R. C. Jopling, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., for intervener First Oklahoma Bancorporation, Inc., Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
319 F.2d 338, The FIRST STATE BANK OF BOOKER, TEXAS, a corporation, Appellant, v.The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BEAVER, OKLAHOMA, a corporation, Appellee. The check presented by Moore in payment for the bank money order was drawn on a bank in Meade, Kansas. The case is therefore affirmed.
320 F.2d 911, The LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMACITY, and First State Bank, Idabel, Oklahoma, v.BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.First Oklahoma Bancorporation, Inc., Intervenor., V. P. Crowe and William G. Paul, Oklahoma City, Okl., PER CURIAM.
325 F.2d 293, LOCAL 1325, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v.TOPPS KERRMILL, INC., Respondent. The unsettling effect of such a rule is apparent on the facts of this case.
, ALDRICH, Circuit Judge. As to this the evidence, uncontradicted (but which the court carefully instructed the jury must be believed if plaintiff was to recover) was that the defendant's then general agent, one Skeean, had authority to receive renewal premiums either in currency or by check;
325 F.2d 155, Thomas R. RICHARDS et al., 1, The court below on June 4, 1963, entered an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss * * * with leave to the plaintiff to amend within twenty days (20) stating the claim attempted to be set forth in paragraph 6 of the present Complaint.
324 F.2d 506, The STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, Inc., Defendant, Appellee. 222 F. Supp. Atty. Gen., with whom William Maynard, Atty. Gen., and William J. O'Neil, Asst., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
323 F.2d 931, Edward M. JOYCE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.William FERRAZZI et al. 633, 44 L. Ed. 725).' Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8, 64 S. Ct. But if they did, not every police error of law or fact arises to the dignity of a deprivation of a federally secured right, privilege or immunity.
323 F.2d 870, MARANNE SHOE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, v.UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, Appellee., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit judges., PER CURIAM., 1, The judgment of the District Court is affirmed on the opinion below. 222 F. Supp.
325 F.2d 666, David B. POWERS, Defendant, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. He appeared with his counsel for sentence on March 11, 1963, at which time the Assistant United States Attorney recommended confinement for six months.
324 F.2d 95, UNITED STATES of America, f/u/b/o Henry J. LARKIN, d/b/aLarkin Company, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.PLATT CONTRACTING CO., Inc., et al., 3, The district court issued an execution on the judgment on December 27, 1962, but on January 25, 1963, it revoked this execution.
324 F.2d 864, Giacomo VENTRESCA, Defendant, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. 724, 9 L. Ed. 2d 719 (1963), it can make no difference which specific observations were made by the affiant himself and which were made by other Investigators and reported in line of duty to the affiant.
, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee.CUMBERLAND FISHERIES, INC. et al., Joseph J. Lyman, Washington, D. C., with whom Benjamin Thompson, Portland, Me. U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
Beverage Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1, For the broad scope of this order, applying to all 'pictures, depictions, or demonstrations * * * not in fact genuine * * *, ' see our former opinion in this case, reported at 310 F.2d 89 (1962), and Judge Wisdom's discussion thereof in Carter Products, Inc. v. F.T.C.
, WOODBURY, Chief Judge. Believing that there might be situations in which a trial court would think it helpful to the jury to allow an expert to give the basis for his opinion, even if resting upon hearsay, we sustained the ruling of the court below as a sound exercise of discretion.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. The machines constructed from the two patents are both equipped with complimentary forepart and rearpart pad box sections containing separate flexible pads with vertical portions for engaging opposite faces of an interposed heel.
325 F.2d 580, Abraham (Abe) BAKER, Individually, and d/b/a Simmonds Upholstering Company, Defendant, Appellant, v.SIMMONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee., HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge., 3, After this court affirmed the aforementioned judgment, Baker v. Simmons Company, 307 F.2d 458 (1st Cir.
, ALDRICH, Circuit Judge., 1, The sole issue in this case is whether appellant taxpayer owes excise taxes, imposed by sections 3408(a) and 4201 of the 1939 and 1954 Internal Revenue Codes, respectively, for a number of years upon the manufacture or production of mechanical cigarette lighters.
457, 86 L. Ed. 680; (4) That O'Brien's figures covered something less than one half of the company's suppliers, and were accordingly artificial.7 This is a patent misconception of O'Brien's formula, which clearly assumed that all suppliers not heard from sold only nontaxable items.
319 F.2d 533, Webster PAIGE, Petitioner, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee., W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U.S. Atty., and William J. Koen, Asst., Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. See Green v. United States, 273 F.2d 216, 217 (C.A.
