Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clark
Rule 21 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that where it appears that an offense was committed in more than one district or division and the court “is satisfied that in the interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred” to another such district or division than the one wherein it is filed, the court shall, upon motion, transfer the case. The respondent filed such a motion to transfer this antitrust prosecution from the Eastern District of Illinois to the District of Minnesota. After a hearing, the trial judge denied this motion on the ground that the factors of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. CoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
3Cited by246 opinions
- William Rodger Starnes v. Honorable Matthew F. McGuire Arthur Everett Small, Jr. v. Honorable George L. Hart, JrCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- Skilling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Singer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Johnson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1985
- United States v. Maldonado-RiveraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
241 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.