United States v. North Pac. W. & T. Co.
Citations
- 5 Alaska 37
Syllabus
<p>1. Indictment and Information &wkey;>132(3)—Two Offenses Charged —Election.</p> <p>The indictment against the defendants contained two counts, charging two offenses. On the trial, at the close of the case for the government, the court on motion dismissed count No. 1 for insufficiency of evidence. Thereupon the trial continued, the defendants introduced evidence in their behalf, and the trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury. Thereafter the defendants . moved to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that it charged two offenses, in violation of the statute. Held, while the indictment was open to that objection at the beginning of the first trial there had been an election to try defendants on the second count, by the dismissal of the first count, before the defendants put in their evidence, which cured the defect; the motion is denied.</p> <p>2. Indictment and Information i®=^132(3)—Two Offenses Charged •—Election.</p> <p>Where the court, after the evidence is in, submits the case to the jury, on an indictment containing several counts, on one count, such submission will constitute an election on the part of the state, and the other counts will be regarded as dismissed.</p> <p>(@=s>See same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that certain performance information was “adverse,” but the Army was not required to disclose it because “the information did not affect the Army’s decision”
- explaining that “the proper role of courts” does not include “second guessing the technical judgments of evaluators”
- noting that the greatest deference possible is given to past performance evaluations
- stating that ‘[ujnless an' element of the SSP is expressly waived by an official with the power to do so, via a valid, articulated reason, the failure to follow that element is, by its very nature, an arbitrary act.”
- “[T]he FAR provision requires a discussion of ‘significant weaknesses,’ not all weaknesses.” (quoting FAR § 15.306(d)(3))
- “The identification of strengths or weaknesses . . . does [not] result in a product that can be mechanically summed or subtracted.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jennings
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.