Gordon v. United States

Supreme Court

Gordon v. United States

347 U.S. 909, 74 S. Ct. 473, 98 L. Ed. 1067, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2431

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 8, 1954

DocketNo. 318

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 347 U.S. 909 (Gordon v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*910willfully 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

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]*910willfully 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 U.S. 909, 74 S. Ct. 473, 98 L. Ed. 1067, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-united-states-scotus-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack