United States v. Conti
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
WYZANSKI, District Judge.
Introductory.
This case is back in the District Court for a new trial, pursuant to an opinion reported under the style of United States v. Conti, 1 Cir., 119 F.2d 652. There are no substantial questions of fact, the principal evidence consisting of documents of the type which the Circuit Court of Appeals has already held admissible. See 119 F.2d 652, 656. And, following numerous concessions made by reasonable counsel in the trial before me, the case now comes down to a single issue of law: Did the United States take the steps that were - requisite under Article 9 of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Royal Insurance v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- United States v. McMullenSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Childs v. KreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- United States v. ContiCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Inman v. Clyde Hall Drilling CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1962
- Orange Bowl Corp. v. WarrenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1989
- Stanley W. Ferguson, Inc. v. Commodity Credit Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1946
- United States v. BarowskyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950