scales v united states 355 u s 1 1957 justia us

scales v united states 355 u s 1 1957 justia us

If you have any needs, please send an email to [email protected], or communicate with us online to get a quick quote

412 US 346 United States v.J Bishop OpenJurist

412 U.S.346.UNITED STATES,Petitioner,v.Cecil J.BISHOP.No.711698.Argued Jan.16,1973.Decided May 29,1973.Syllabus.Respondent was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C.§ 7206 (1),which makes it a felony when one ' (w)illfully makes and subscribes any return scales v united states 355 u s 1 1957 justia uswhich he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material American Trucking Assns.,Inc.v.United States : 355 U.S 355 U.S.149-150.(d) Congress did not intend the rigid requirement of § 5(2)(b) to be considered as a limitation on certificates issued under § 207.P.355 U.S.150.(e) This holding is not contrary to United States v.Rock Island Motor Transit Co.,340 U.S.419,or United States v.Texas Pacific Motor Transport Co.,340 U.S.450.P Benanti v.United States : 355 U.S.96 (1957) : Justia Decided December 9,1957.355 U.S.96.Syllabus.Evidence obtained as a result of wiretapping a telephone by state law enforcement officers pursuant to a state court warrant authorized by state law,and without participation by federal authorities,is not admissible in a criminal trial in a federal court where the existence of the intercepted communication is disclosed to the jury in violation of § 605 of the Federal

Brock v.State of Florida et al - U.S.District Court and

Bell Atlantic Corp.v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,555 (quoting Conley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,47 (1957)).Even though pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will,therefore,be liberally construed, Tannenbaum v.Junius Irving SCALES,petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of 355 U.S.1.78 S.Ct.9.2 L.Ed.2d 19.Junius Irving SCALES,petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America.No.3.Supreme Court of the United States.October 14,1957LAMBERT v.CALIFORNIA FindLawUnited States Supreme Court.LAMBERT v.CALIFORNIA(1957) No.47 Argued April 3,1957 Decided December 16,1957.A Los Angeles municipal ordinance makes it an offense for a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable in California as a felony to remain in the City for more than five days without registering with the Chief of Police.

Limone v.United States,497 F.Supp.2d 143

Coyne v.United States,270 F.Supp.2d 104,112 (D.Mass.2003) (quoting Berkovitz v.United States,486 U.S.531,536-37,108 S.Ct.1954,100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988)).Because the party who sues the United States bears the burden of pointing to scales v united states 355 u s 1 1957 justia usan unequivocal waiver of immunity, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the discretionary Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v.the United States,375 F Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v.the United States,375 F.2d 786 (Ct.Cl.1967) case opinion from the U.S.Court of Claims (1855-1982)Marshall Reedom,Jr.v.Louis Ackal,et al - docs.justiaGibson,355 U.S.41 (1957).6 2 Case 13-30764 Document 00512500085 Page 3 Date Filed 01/14/2014 No.13-30764 We agree with the district court that Reedom has failed to establish that he suffered some personal injury as a result of the defendants actions.


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only `a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to `give the defendant fair notice of what the scales v united states 355 u s 1 1957 justia usclaim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' Twombly,127 1964 (quoting Conley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,47 (1957)).Pacheco v.Ryland Homes - Justia Dockets FilingsConley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,45-46 (1957).In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6),courts must be mindful that the Federal Rules require only that the complaint contain `a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]' United States v.Polaris IP,LLC v.Google al - U.S.District Court Gibson,355 U.S.41,45-46 (1957)).1 3 Case 2:07-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 37 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 4 of 9 1965 n.3 (citations omitted).Therefore,in order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),a plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Posters `N' Things,Ltd.v.United States,511 U.S.513

Similarly,in United States v.United States Gypsum Co.,438 U.S.422,444 (1978),the Court addressed thequestion whether a criminal violation of the Sherman Act requires,in addition to proof of anticompetitive effects,a demonstration that the disputed conduct was undertaken with the `conscious object' of producing such effects,or whether Rathbun v.United States : 355 U.S.107 (1957) : Justia U.S.Supreme Court Rathbun v.United States,355 U.S.107 (1957) Rathbun v.United States.No.30.Argued October 29,1957.Decided December 9,1957.355 U.S.107.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SyllabusSCALES v.UNITED STATES : 355 U.S.1 (1957) : Justia US U.S.Supreme Court SCALES v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.1 (1957) 355 U.S.1.SCALES v.UNITED STATES.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.No.3.Argued October 10-11,1956.Restored to the docket for reargument June 3,1957.Decided October 14,1957.


SCALES v.UNITED STATES(1957) No.3 Argued Decided October 14,1957.Upon consideration of the record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General,the judgment is reversed.Jencks v.United States,353 U.S.657 .227 F.2d 581,reversed.Telford Taylor argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for the United States.Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.12345NextThe NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,Petitioner,v.L.B.United States,354 U.S.476,77 S.Ct.1304,1 L.Ed.2d 1498,and 'fighting words,' Chaplinsky v.New Hampshire,315 U.S.568 ,62 S.Ct.766,86 L.Ed.1061,are not expression within the protection of the First Amendment ,4 freedom to discus public affairs and public officials is unquestionably,as the Court today holds,the kind of speech the


Conley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,47 (1957).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaints sufficiency.See N.Star Intl v.Ariz.Corp.Commn,720 F.2d 578,581 (9th Cir.1983).US Supreme Court Volumes FindLawSCALES v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.1 (1957) October 14,1957 No.3 SCHAFFER TRANSP.CO.v.US,355 U.S.83 (1957) December 9,1957 No.20 SEARS v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.602 (1958) March 3,1958 No.626 SIMPSON v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.7 (1957) October 14,1957 No.131 SOUTHERN R.CO.v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.283 (1958) January 6,1958 No.558United States v.Archer,355 F.Supp.981 (S.D.N.Y.1972 United States,355 F.2d 999 (9th Cir.),cert.denied,385 U.S.815,87 S.Ct.34,17 L.Ed.2d 54 (1966).Therefore,notwithstanding any legislative history cited by defendants to the contrary,the clear and unequivocal language of the statute and supporting case law do not support their position.

United States v.Maiden,355 F.Supp.743 (D - Justia Law

The analogy is rendered doubtful by Stanley's disclaimer of any limitation on the power of government to make possession of narcotics a crime.394 568,n.11,89 S.Ct.1243.[1] Moreover,the abortion decision explicitly declined to recognize a generalized right to use one's body as one pleases.United States v.McKeever,169 F.Supp.426 (S.D.N.Y.1958)In Monroe v.United States,1956,98 U.S.App.D.C.228,234 F.2d 49,54,certiorari denied 352 U.S.873,77 S.Ct.94,1 L.Ed.2d 76,rehearing denied 352 U.S.937,77 S.Ct.219,1 L.Ed.2d 170,motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied 355 U.S.875,78 S.Ct.114,2 L.Ed.2d 79,the Court unanimously held that recordings United States v.Provinzano,333 F.Supp.255 (E.D.Wis Marchisio,344 F.2d 653,665 (2d Cir.1965); United States v.Parker,244 F.2d 943,950 (7th Cir.1957),cert.denied 355 U.S.836,78 S.Ct.61,2 L.Ed.2d 48.It is incumbent upon the government to prove that a person accused of perjury under § 1621 had knowledge that his statements made under oath were false at the time that he made them.


See Girouard v.United States,328 U.S.61 (1946).It dates back to colonial times and has been perpetuated in state and federal conscription statutes.See Mr.Justice Cardozo's separate opinion in Hamilton v.Board of Regents,293 u.S.,at 267; Macintosh v.United States,42 F.2d 845,847 (1930).Yates v.United States : 355 U.S.66 (1957) : Justia US U.S.Supreme Court Yates v.United States,355 U.S.66 (1957) Yates v.United States.No.2.Argued October 9-10,1956.Restored to the calendar for reargument June 10,1957.Reargued October 22,1957.Decided November 25,1957.355 U.S.66.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus{{meta.fullTitle}} - {{meta.siteName}}Scales v.United States.Media.Oral Argument - October 10,1956; Oral Argument - October 11,1956; Opinions.Syllabus ; Scales .Respondent United States .Docket no.3 .Decided by Warren Court .Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit .Citation 355 US 1 (1957) Argued.Oct 10 - 11,1956.Decided.Oct 14,1957


A chemist working for the United States later identified the package's contents as heroin.The government charged Roviaro with trafficking heroin,in violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act.He was convicted,and the district court denied his motion for a new trial.The U.S.Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit,affirmed the ruling.{{meta.fullTitle}}FactsIssueAnalysisRoth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute.Roth's case was combined with Alberts v.California,in which a California obscenity law was challenged by Alberts after his similar conviction for selling lewd and obscene books in addition to composing and publishing obscene advertisements for his products.See more on oyez{{meta.fullTitle}}Justia Supreme Court Center; Cases; Court Center; Green v.United States.Media.Oral Reargument - October 16,1957 (Part 2) Oral Reargument - October 16,1957 (Part 1) Oral Argument - April 25,1957; Opinions.Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Green .Respondent United States .Docket no.46 .Decided by Warren Court .Citation 355 US 184 {{meta.fullTitle}}The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the conviction because the district court had denied Shotwells motion to suppress evidence of certain disclosures.Shotwell allegedly made these disclosures in good faith,thinking they would shield them from liability.

If you have any needs, please send an email to [email protected], or communicate with us online to get a quick quote

Post your Inquire

Recent post