S.W. Daniel, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, by and Through Its President Sylvia Daniel v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• approving jury instruction explaining “readily restored” to include “weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts” (emphasis added)
• approving jury instruction explaining \readily restored\ to include \weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts\ (emphasis added)
• upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts”
• upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as \those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts\
• approving jury instruction explaining “readily restored” to include “weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts” (emphasis added)
• approving jury charge stating “‘[t]he law also defines as machine guns those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).