Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided August 28, 1952No. 22315_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiggs, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority opinion in all respects save one. I cannot agree that a conviction for criminal contempt may be sustained on facts from which it is shown that the United States Attorney had given notice to an attorney of a proposed order requiring his client to appear for execution -of sentence, even though the inference is properly supportable that the attorney informed his client of the proposed order. The pertinent statute is Section 401(3), Title 18, U.S.C.1

On June 28, 1951, the mandate of the Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Pettibone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Nye v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. SavinSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  5. In Re MichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API