Legal Opinion

United States v. Fisher

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 29, 1988No. Crim. A. 86-00451-18, 19PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

KATZ, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 1988, after a hearing and upon consideration of defendants Herman Bloom and Herbert K. Fisher’s Motion and Renewed Motion to Suppress Certain Tape Recorded Conversations and the government’s responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motions are DENIED. 1 The government may introduce into evidence those portions of the tape recordings of the October 16, 1985, November 21, 1985, December 3,1985, December 17, 1985, December 30, 1985 and January 27, 1986 conversations which they have not previously agreed to exclude. 2

Defenda…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Marshall v. HendricksDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
  3. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Commonwealth v. FerriSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. United States v. NorrisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010

2 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