Legal Opinion

United States v. Gehl

District Court, N.D. New York

Decided May 13, 1994No. 5:93-cr-00300PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

McCURN, Senior District Judge.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

“Once again, a little fish has caused a commotion.” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 132, 106 S.Ct. 2440, 2444, 91 L.Ed.2d 110 (1986) (and cases cited therein). Although those words were not written with this case in mind, they certainly could have been. This time though a great commotion has been caused by tiny salmon eggs.

The defendants Robert J. Gehl, Tempotech Industries, Inc., Gehl Productions, Inc. 1 and George Jackson, 2 are engaged in the business of, among other things, processing, distributing and selling…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. City of Philadelphia v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1978

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. ReevesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
  2. United States v. McDougallDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API