California v. United States

Parentheticals

• such a condition "might be thought to bear a reasonable relationship to the treatment of the accused and the protection of the public.”

  UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Erwin EYLER, Defendant-Appellant

• where four defendants were allowed a total of twelve challenges and the Government was allowed seven

  United States v. Harney Elihu Hooper, Jr.

• under Rule 705, court was entitled to credit expert’s conclusion even though expert did not describe and explain the relevance of factors upon which his opinion rested; defendant neither cross-examined on basis for opinion nor attempted to show its inadequacy

  Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., and Opto Electronics

• under Rule 705, court was entitled to credit expert’s conclusion even though expert did not describe and explain the relevance of factors upon which his opinion rested; defendant neither cross-examined on basis for opinion nor attempted to show its inadequacy

  Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.

• under Rule 705, court was entitled to credit expert’s conclusion even though expert did not describe and explain the relevance of factors upon which his opinion rested; defendant neither cross-examined on basis for opinion nor attempted to show its inadequacy

  Century Wrecker Corp. v. E.R. Buske Manufacturing Co.