Legal Opinion

United States v. De Bolt

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided July 3, 1918No. 1105PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Homer De Bolt and another were indicted and tried for violating Sabotage Daw, § 3. On motions for directed verdicts.

1Opinion of the Court

SATER, District Judge.

[1] The evidence having all been submitted, each of the defendants moves for a directed verdict on the grounds (1) that the indictment does not state a cause of action, and (2) that, if the indictment is good, the evidence does not warrant a conviction. It is the duty of a court, in considering such a motion, to take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is desired that the verdict should be directed, and, from that evidence and the inferences reasonably and justifiably to be drawn therefrom, determine whether or not under the law a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. EatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1)Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  3. United States v. WorrallSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
  4. State v. AverySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
  5. United States v. QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1832

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. Roy MandujanoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  2. United States v. American Airlines, Inc. And Robert L. CrandallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
  3. Ex Parte United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API