Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Bobinski

254 F.2d 686

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1958-05-01
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. When this case was before us on a previous appeal, we ordered the judgment below vacated for further findings and explanation of his award by the trial judge, United States v. Bobinski, 2, Cir., 244 F.2d 299. He has complied with our mandate and the case is again before us on an unchanged award, but with fuller findings and explanatory opinion. We think his award is now sustained by his findings, and in accord with the usual principles of review we must sustain the result thus supported by the evidence.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Bobinski. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
UNITED STATES v. BOBINSKI,254 F.2d 686(2nd Cir. 1958)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maxim BOBINSKI et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 349, Docket 24901.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1958.
Decided May 1, 1958.
Edgar G. Brisach, New York City (John H. Finn, New York City, Gordon M. Lipetz, Solomon Raffe, Riverhead, N.Y., and Remsen Brinckerhoff, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. Donald Mileur, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Harry T. Dolan, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
When this case was before us on a previous appeal, we ordered the judgment below vacated for further findings and explanation of his award by the trial judge, United States v. Bobinski, 2 Cir.,244 F.2d 299. He has complied with our mandate and the case is again before us on an unchanged award, but with fuller findings and explanatory opinion. We think his award is now sustained by his findings, and in accord with the usual principles of review we must sustain the result thus supported by the evidence. United States v. 44.00 Acres of Land, 2 Cir.,234 F.2d 410, certiorari denied Odenbach v. United States,352 U.S. 916, 77 S.Ct. 215, 1 L.Ed.2d 123. No further findings or proceedings are required and various other contentions presented do not show error.

Affirmed.Page 687