United States v. Minkoff

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 3, 1950. Decided April 20, 1950.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1950-04-20

2 counsel of record

Relies on Welch v. Helvering · New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering · Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1950-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1983

10 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gallop, Climenko & Gould, Jesse Climenko, New York City (Martin N. Whyman, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Irving H. Saypol, U.S. Atty., New York City (John C. Hilly, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for United States.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellants' motion asks that we remand this case to the district court in order that they may there seek a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 we should only entertain such a motion in case the district court indicates, after a hearing, that it intends to grant a motion for a new trial.

Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 771; Dession, New Rules of Criminal Procedure, 56 Yale L.J. (1947) 197, 232; N.Y. Univ. School of Law Institute-Proceedings, Vol. VI, p. 206