Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

Tenth Circuit

Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

577 F.2d 106

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1978

DocketNos. 76-2079, 76-2080 and 76-2083

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 577 F.2d 106 (Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 577 F.2d 106 (10th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant failed to object or except to the giving of the Allen instruction. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492,17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). Our examination of the record convinces us that appellant is in no position to raise the question at this time. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Apellant’s other contentions: (1) that the judge abused his discretion in failing to interrogate the potential jurors in accordance with her requests, (2) that the government failed to comply with the discovery requirements of Rule 16, F.R.Crim.P., and (3) that the government’s failure to disclose to her that it intended to use her statement, in which she disclosed that she knew the combination to her codefendant’s suitcase was error, are meritless.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appellant failed to object or except to the giving of the Allen instruction. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492,17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). Our examination of the record convinces us that appellant is in no position to raise the question at this time. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Apellant’s other contentions: (1) that the judge abused his discretion in failing to interrogate the potential jurors in accordance with her requests, (2) that the government failed to comply with the discovery requirements of Rule 16, F.R.Crim.P., and (3) that the government’s failure to disclose to her that it intended to use her statement, in which she disclosed that she knew the combination to her codefendant’s suitcase was error, are meritless.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F.2d 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colonial-ford-inc-v-ford-motor-co-ca10-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack