Legal Opinion
Fanelli v. United States Gypsum Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 17, 1944No. 245PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. A month after his discharge, plaintiff made a one-sheet memorandum which, he testified, set forth the details of his overtime work from the beginning of his employment to the date of that discharge, a period of about five months. Over defendant’s objection, the trial judge permitted plaintiff, when testifying, to use this memorandum to refresh his recollection. Defendant, asserting error, relies on Putnam v. United States, 162 U.S. 687, 16 S. Ct. 923, 40 L.Ed. 1118, where the court held it reversible error to allow a witness for the government in a criminal trial to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Field v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- United States v. RiccardiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Albert S. Craig v. Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation, Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Albert S. CraigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Smith v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
- Dowling Bros. Distilling Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1946
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.