United States v. Hearne

5 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Hughes

    311 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    "An information may be filed without leave of court." See United States v. Hearne, 6 F.R.D. 294 (D.C.Wis. 1946); United States v. Kennedy, 5 F.R.D. 310 (D.C.Colo. 1946). And a defendant may be charged and tried for misdemeanor on an information not verified or supported by affidavit.

  2. United States v. Jones

    207 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 21 times
    In United States v. Jones (5th Cir. 1953) 207 F.2d 785, where the defendant, an officer in a state prison, whipped prisoners for the purpose of disciplining them, the court stated that "Color of law, as used in the [federal] statute means pretense of law; it may include, but does not necessarily mean, under authority of law," (pp. 786-787) and that "the defendant was whipping these prisoners under color of law although doing it in violation of law."

    4; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L. Ed. 1348; United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 327, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368; Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495; Dowd v. State ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S. Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215; Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 103, 71 S.Ct. 576, 95 L.Ed. 774; United States v. Jones, 345 U.S. 377, 378, 73 S.Ct. 759; Pullen v. United States, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 756; Pulliam v. United States, 10 Cir., 178 F.2d 777; United States v. Lynch, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 476; United States v. Slobodkin, D.C., 48 F. Supp. 913; United States v. Mertine, D.C., 64 F. Supp. 792; Gordon v. Garrson, D.C., 77 F. Supp. 477; United States v. Miller, D.C., 80 F. Supp. 979; United States v. Universal Milk Bottle Service, Inc., D.C., 85 F. Supp. 622; United States v. Kranz, D.C., 86 F. Supp. 776; Siegel v. Ragen, D.C., 88 F. Supp. 996, affirmed, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 785, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 990, 70 S.Ct. 1015, 94 L. Ed. 1391; United States v. Hearne, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 294. Cf. Davis v. Turner, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 847, 849.

  3. Carter v. Panama Canal Company

    314 F. Supp. 386 (D.D.C. 1970)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that walking time of two to fifteen minutes, with an average of eight minutes, was de minimis and citing cases holding that five minutes, ten to eleven minutes, and ten minutes were all de minimis

    However, an employee subject to this subsection who regularly is required to remain at or within the confines of his post of duty in excess of 8 hours a day in a standby or on-call status is entitled to overtime pay only for hours of duty, exclusive of eating and sleeping time, in excess of 40 a week * * *. The Supreme Court in United States v. Townsley, 323 U.S. 557, 65 S.Ct. 413, 89 L.Ed. 454 (1945) and United States v. Hearne, 331 U.S. 858, 67 S.Ct. 1752, 91 L.Ed. 1865 (1946) held that the predecessor to § 5544 (5 U.S.C. § 673c) was applicable to Panama Canal Company employees. The so-called Morse Amendment to that Act, 29 U.S.C. § 218(b), specifically made the Act's wage requirements applicable to all wage board employees of the Panama Canal Company.

  4. United States v. Blasius

    230 F. Supp. 995 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    "* * * The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, `and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.' * * * Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S.Ct. 417, 419, 76 L.Ed. 861." The Information herein is substantially in the form of the statute and in such a case, in the absence of ambiguity, the court is constrained to find it sufficient. United States v. Achtner, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 49; United States v. Palmiotti, 2 Cir., 254 F.2d 491; United States v. Mertine, D.C.N.J., 64 F. Supp. 792; United States v. Hearne, D.C.Wis., 6 F.R.D. 294; United States v. Gilboy, D.C.Pa., 160 F. Supp. 442. A reading of Section 33 presents no ambiguity to this court.

  5. United States v. Merrick

    207 F. Supp. 929 (W.D. Mo. 1962)   Cited 3 times

    Rule 12(a), Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.A. However, a motion to quash may be considered as a motion to dismiss. United States v. Hearne (E.D.Wis.) 6 F.R.D. 294. It will be so considered and liberally construed to include the particular questions discussed in the cases hereinafter cited.