Frank Paul Ventimiglia, James Harold Parran, and Weather-Mastic, Inc. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge,
The Taft-Hartley Act forbids the payment of money by an employer subject to its provisions to “any representative 0f any of his employees.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(a). The defendants were indicted f0r three substantive violations of this law and for conspiracy to violate it. At a trial before the District Judge, sitting without a jury, the defendants were acquitted of the substantive offenses, but convicted of the conspiracy. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is the question raised by this appeal.
Weather-Mastic, Inc., is a non-unionjzec[ contractor…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Viereck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- People v. . GardnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Woo Wai v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. BrowneCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Herbert R. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- King v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
- State v. MORETTISupreme Court of New Jersey · 1968
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.