United States v. Continental Can Co.

United States v. Cont'l Can Co., 375 U.S. 893 (1963)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: October 28, 1963
Docket: No. 367
Citations: 375 U.S. 89384 S. Ct. 17311 L. Ed. 2d 1231963 U.S. LEXIS 355

Cited by 61 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Probable jurisdiction noted.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that an individual’s pointing to a written list fell within the hearsay rule, since this act was “as much a communication as a statement that ‘This is a list of the names and numbers of the salesmen’ ” implicated in the securities fraud case would have been)

Dyson v. State, 615 A.2d 1182 (Md. 1992)
(pointing of finger held to be a statement for purposes of hearsay rule)

United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1983)

Cited by 61 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Donald James and David Anthony Butler, United States of America v. Henry Smith and Kenneth Wayne Whitmore590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Hubbard650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
United States v. Roy B349 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1965)
United States v. Dennis Geaney and Vincent Russell Lynch417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969)
United States v. Francis Ditommaso817 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1987)
United States v. Joseph R. Jackson627 F.2d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

Most recent

United States v. O'Connor650 F.3d 839 (2d Cir. 2011)
Dyson v. State615 A.2d 1182 (Md. 1992)
Texas Commerce Bank, N.A. v. United Savings Ass'n of Texas789 F. Supp. 848 (S.D. Tex. 1992)
United States v. Francis Ditommaso817 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1987)
In re CL397 N.W.2d 81 (S.D. 1986)
In re the Dependency & Neglect of C.L.397 N.W.2d 81 (S.D. 1986) · Concurrence

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list