Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

487 F.2d 342

Docket No. 73-2362. Summary Calendar.*

United States v. Weeks

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Nov. 21, 1973.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1973-11-21

2 counsel of record

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1193 · 15 U.S.C. § 1394 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2058 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2060 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 717

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Simmons v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1973-11-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 1998 · most notably Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nalco Chemical Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency (1976), Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy (1992)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

280197319801990decided

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 →

N. P. Callahan, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Wayman Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Stephen Salter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether in-court identifications were tainted by pre-trial photographic displays. The record contains substantial evidence that the photographic identification procedure did not "give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification," Simmons v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253, and that the in-court identifications were based on observation of the appellant during the crime. We need not reach this issue, however, because it was not preserved for appeal by appropriate objection during the trial. The admission of the in-court identification being free of plain error, and appellant's other points of appeal being without merit, the judgment of the court below is therefore

¶2

Affirmed.

/487/f2d/342 · .json · Public domain