United States v. Omar Clarence Phillips

286 F.2d 428
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided December 13, 1960·No. 14264·Published

Opinion

ORDER.

The above cause coming on to be heard on the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court and the court being duly advised:

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and is hereby affirmed. Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad Company v. Turnipseed, Administrator, 219 U.S. 35, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78; Hawes v. State of Georgia, 258 U.S. 1, 42 S.Ct. 204, 66 L.Ed. 431; Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904; Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 48 S.Ct. 603, 72 L.Ed. 632; Morrison et al. v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S.Ct. 281, 78 L.Ed. 664; Caudillo v. United States, 9 Cir., 253 F.2d 513.

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

United States v. Omar Clarence Phillips, 286 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1960).

286 F.2d 428 (United States v. Omar Clarence Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hawes v. Georgia
258 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1922)
Yee Hem v. United States
268 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Casey v. United States
276 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1928)
Morrison v. California
291 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1934)