Legal Opinion
United States v. Hannigan
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 9, 1969No. Crim. No. 12365PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
Blumenfeld, District Judge.
The defendants in this prosecution for mail fraud and conspiracy under 18 U.S. C. §§ 13411 and 371 are Technicolor, Inc.; J. Charles Distributing Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Technicolor, Inc.; Development Enterprises, Inc. of New York and its president, Rubin Stemgass; Development Enterprises, Inc. of Connecticut and its president, Charles Hegel; Cine-Tech Corp. and its president, William Hannigan; and employed salesmen of Cine-Tech.
Summarizing the allegations in the indictment, the scheme to defraud was one whereby…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- United States v. RoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- United States v. John Andreadis A/K/A John Andre and Drug Research CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Cohen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Morris Baren, Samuel C. Stein, Strick-Matador Corporation and Strick-Matador Corp. Of OhioCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Bernard FeinbergCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- United States v. GordonDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1980
- People v. Block & Kleaver, Inc., New York County Courts1980
- United States v. Kostoglou (In Re Kostoglou)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1987