United States v. Dynalectric Company Paxson Electric Company G.W. Walther Ewalt Wesley C. Paxson, Sr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy
• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy
• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy
• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy
• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy
• holding that statements made by an unidentified telephone caller were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because “it is clear from the testimony and the context that the caller was associated” with members of the alleged conspiracy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).