COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES - Revision history

Randylyon at 03:49, 30 October 2021

2021-10-30T03:49:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, 30 October 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	The court, however, found 131 errors in the lower court's handling of the case. The court found that there had been a failure to instruct the jury that they should not hold the owners responsible for clerical mistakes by employees. The lower court had also failed to provide clear instruction about agency-court. The issue was the business could be a co-partnership or an agency, but it could not be both. Lastly, the court failed to instruct the jury about honest belief, good faith, and lack of criminal intent issues on the part of the Wagon Works.		The court, however, found 131 errors in the lower court's handling of the case. The court found that there had been a failure to instruct the jury that they should not hold the owners responsible for clerical mistakes by employees. The lower court had also failed to provide clear instruction about agency-court. The issue was the business could be a co-partnership or an agency, but it could not be both. Lastly, the court failed to instruct the jury about honest belief, good faith, and lack of criminal intent issues on the part of the Wagon Works.

	The verdict finding the owners of the Wagon Works guilty in the lower court ~~were~~ overturned. There is no evidence that the charges were ever re-investigated or the defendants being retried.		The verdict finding the owners of the Wagon Works guilty in the lower court was overturned. There is no evidence that the charges were ever re-investigated or the defendants being retried.

	---		---

Randylyon at 19:04, 14 March 2020

2020-03-14T19:04:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 14 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in [[UNITED STATES v. COOPER et al.]] was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925.		COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in [[UNITED STATES v. COOPER et al.]] was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925.

	Lawyers for the [[COOPER WAGON ~~WORKS~~]] raised several issues on appeal. They argued at the indictment should have been quashed because of an improper search and seizure of private papers. They further argued that the use of improperly obtained papers led to tainted evidence. Both arguments were rejected on appeal.		Lawyers for the [[A. A. COOPER WAGON AND BUGGY COMPANY]] raised several issues on appeal. They argued at the indictment should have been quashed because of an improper search and seizure of private papers. They further argued that the use of improperly obtained papers led to tainted evidence. Both arguments were rejected on appeal.

	Lawyers also appealed that there had been an improper admission of books of the corporation as they were not books of individual defendants. They also disagreed with the admission of experts' books rather than the actual records. These issues too were rejected by the court.		Lawyers also appealed that there had been an improper admission of books of the corporation as they were not books of individual defendants. They also disagreed with the admission of experts' books rather than the actual records. These issues too were rejected by the court.

Randylyon at 04:55, 12 December 2017

2017-12-12T04:55:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 12 December 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:

	LexisNexis		LexisNexis

			[[Category: Legal Cases]]

Randylyon at 23:27, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T23:27:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 19 November 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Source:		Source:

			Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. COOPER v. UNITED STATES 9 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1925) Online: https://casetext.com/case/cooper-v-united-states-25

	LexisNexis		LexisNexis

Randylyon at 04:16, 21 November 2010

2010-11-21T04:16:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 21 November 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	---		---

	~~Sources~~:		Source:

	LexisNexis		LexisNexis

Randylyon at 04:14, 21 November 2010

2010-11-21T04:14:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 21 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in [[UNITED STATES v. COOPER]] was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925.		COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in [[UNITED STATES v. COOPER et al.]] was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925.

	Lawyers for the [[COOPER WAGON WORKS]] raised several issues on appeal. They argued at the indictment should have been quashed because of an improper search and seizure of private papers. They further argued that the use of improperly obtained papers led to tainted evidence. Both arguments were rejected on appeal.		Lawyers for the [[COOPER WAGON WORKS]] raised several issues on appeal. They argued at the indictment should have been quashed because of an improper search and seizure of private papers. They further argued that the use of improperly obtained papers led to tainted evidence. Both arguments were rejected on appeal.

Randylyon: New page: COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in UNITED STATES v. COOPER was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925. Lawyers for the COOPER WAGON WORKS raised several is...

2010-11-21T04:13:33Z

New page: COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in UNITED STATES v. COOPER was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925. Lawyers for the COOPER WAGON WORKS raised several is...

New page

COOPER et al. v. UNITED STATES. The decision in [[UNITED STATES v. COOPER]] was appealed in the 8th Circuit Court of Iowa in 1925.

Lawyers for the [[COOPER WAGON WORKS]] raised several issues on appeal. They argued at the indictment should have been quashed because of an improper search and seizure of private papers. They further argued that the use of improperly obtained papers led to tainted evidence. Both arguments were rejected on appeal.

Lawyers also appealed that there had been an improper admission of books of the corporation as they were not books of individual defendants. They also disagreed with the admission of experts' books rather than the actual records. These issues too were rejected by the court.

The court, however, found 131 errors in the lower court's handling of the case. The court found that there had been a failure to instruct the jury that they should not hold the owners responsible for clerical mistakes by employees. The lower court had also failed to provide clear instruction about agency-court. The issue was the business could be a co-partnership or an agency, but it could not be both. Lastly, the court failed to instruct the jury about honest belief, good faith, and lack of criminal intent issues on the part of the Wagon Works.

The verdict finding the owners of the Wagon Works guilty in the lower court were overturned. There is no evidence that the charges were ever re-investigated or the defendants being retried.

---

Sources:

LexisNexis