Ferguson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Young (Supreme Court of the United States 1985)
- United States v. William Martin and Prince Parker (7th Cir. 1967)
- Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Farmland Dairy Farms, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995)
- Cavalier Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Liberty Homes, Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983)
- Paul Williams v. United States (9th Cir. 1981)
- Williams v. Kleaveland (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1981)
- Lafayette Steel Co. v. National Steel Corp. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1980)
- Exxon Corporation v. Wagner (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1977)
- Stamatiou v. United States Gypsum Company (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1975)
- Black v. Econo-Car International, Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1975)
- Bay City-Abrahams Bros., Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
- Ark Dental Supply Company v. Cavitron Corporation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
- The Daily Press, Inc. v. United Press International, the Evening News Association, Knight Newspapers, Inc. (6th Cir. 1969)
- Robert Lowell Rogers v. The United States of America, Waldo Kent Ferguson v. The United States of America (10th Cir. 1966)
- United States of America Ex Rel. Albert Dixon v. Frank J. Pate, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois (7th Cir. 1964)
- United States v. Borgese (District Court, S.D. New York 1964)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Certiorari, 374 U. S. 805, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The motion of the United States to remand is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that Court with directions to determine whether, in the light of the relevant circumstances, the trial court’s ruling that only one of the two defense counsel would be allowed to question each prosecution witness on cross-examination constitutes error of such magnitude as to require a reversal under the plain error rule.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.