Gordon v. United States

347 U.S. 909, 74 S. Ct. 473, 98 L. Ed. 1067, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2431
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 8, 1954·No. No. 318·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Petitioners are business partners in the sale of appliances. They were convicted under § 603 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 814, which provides that “Any person who [910] willfully violates” regulations promulgated under the Act shall be guilty of crime. The jury was instructed that the knowledge of petitioners’ employees was chargeable to petitioners in determining petitioners’ wilfulness. Because of the instruction, the Government has confessed error. We agree, and accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for retrial.

John S. Boyden argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Allen H. Tib-bals. John R. Benney argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Olney and Beatrice Rosenberg.

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

Gordon v. United States, 347 U.S. 909, 74 S. Ct. 473, 98 L. Ed. 1067, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2431 (1954).

347 U.S. 909 (Gordon v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George Harms Construction Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority
644 A.2d 76 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1994)
United States v. a & P Trucking Co.
358 U.S. 121 (Supreme Court, 1958)
McMullans v. Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Co.
229 F.2d 50 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)
People v. Vidal
78 P.R. 71 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1955)
Pueblo v. Vidal
78 P.R. Dec. 76 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1955)
United States v. Flynn
216 F.2d 354 (Second Circuit, 1954)