Legal Opinion
United States v. Kemmel
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 5, 1958No. Crim. No. 12808PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN W. MURPHY, Chief Judge.
Defendants indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371, 1 move to dismiss, urging (1) the indictment does not state sufficient facts to constitute an offense against the United States; (2) it is duplicitous because it alleges that the conspiracy contemplated the commission of an offense against the United States and to defraud the United States; (3) defendant John B. Kemmel, Inc., is a Corporation and incapable of being a party to a conspiracy. 2
Consolidated Construction Co., Inc., 3 under contract with the United .States to construct four warehouses at the…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Braverman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1252, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8576 John R. Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association, John A. Virostek, Joseph E. Bugel, John J. Dravecky, Daniel T. Kubasak, Edward J. Lesko, James E. Orris, Joseph A. Prokopovitsh, John G. Micenko and Frank J. VanekCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- United States v. RigasCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- United States v. BridellDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1960
- United States v. Consolidated Coal Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.