finding that, under 18 U.S.C. § 641, which omits the word copies, "when an employee copies a record on government equipment without authorization, the duplicate copy is a record for purposes of the statute"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. LangNo. 76-174.
January 10, 1977.
C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 534 F. 2d 566.
finding that, under 18 U.S.C. § 641, which omits the word copies, "when an employee copies a record on government equipment without authorization, the duplicate copy is a record for purposes of the statute"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Langfinding suit for cancer not barred by earlier discovery of thrombophlebitis, because taking of same drug could have exposed plaintiff to "separate risks" and could have produced phlebitis and cancer by separate chains of causality
Summary of this case from Hagerty v. L L Marine Services, Inc.applying New Jersey law to contraceptive drugs
Summary of this case from Yung v. Raymark Industries, Inc.applying New Jersey law
Summary of this case from Richardson v. Knud Hansen Memorial Hospitaldiscussing New Jersey law, which applies the two-disease rule
Summary of this case from Nelson v. A.W. Chesterton Co.zoning ordinance inapplicable to Indian reservation
Summary of this case from All Mission Indian Housing Authority v. Silvasarguing that placing burden of proof on defendant would be unconstitutional
Summary of this case from United States v. Turnerinvolving improper conduct by state Department of Revenue employees
Summary of this case from In re Bellucciapplying New Jersey law to allow separate causes of action for thrombophlebitus and cancer resulting from the taking of a contraceptive drug on the rationale that the two diseases were not products of the same "chain of causality"
Summary of this case from Sheppard v. A.C. S. Co.Full title:MEAD JOHNSON Co. v. GOODMAN, EXECUTOR
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 10, 1977
The appellants further contend that, whereas the district court presented to the jury an extensive…
United States v. BillingsleaThe law of this Circuit is that separate takings punishable individually as misdemeanors cannot be aggregated…