Gordon v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1Per curiam
Petitioners are business partners in the sale of appliances. They were convicted under § 603 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 814, which provides that “Any person who *910willfully violates” regulations promulgated under the Act shall be guilty of crime. The jury was instructed that the knowledge of petitioners’ employees was chargeable to petitioners in determining petitioners’ wilfulness. Because of the instruction, the Government has confessed error. We agree, and accordingly reverse the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for retrial.
John S. Boyden argued the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- George Harms Construction Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- United States v. a & P Trucking Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- United States v. FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Mcmullans v. Kansas, Oklahoma And Gulf Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.