This case involved a Title VII claim by John R. Sek, a white Polish-American employee in Bethlehem Steel's Industrial Relations Department, alleging national origin and race discrimination in the company's refusal to transfer him to community relations work and its decision to terminate him during a 1970 economic downturn instead of retaining a Black colleague. The court ruled for the defendant, finding no violation of Title VII, denying all relief including reinstatement and back pay, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. The core reasoning was that Sek's documented substandard performance, poor attitude, and self-admitted strategy of underperforming to force a transfer explained his treatment, while the retained colleague had consistently better evaluations; the discharge was deemed a legitimate business decision based on performance reviews rather than discriminatory motive.
This case involved the federal prosecution of attorney William A. Goichman for willfully attempting to evade payment of income taxes in 1968 and 1969 under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The government used the net worth method to establish a tax deficiency by showing that the defendant's increases in assets during those years substantially exceeded his reported taxable income, after establishing an opening net worth for 1967 and negating likely non-taxable sources while identifying his law practice as a likely source of unreported income. The jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts, and the court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, concluding that the government had proven all required elements including willfulness through evidence of diverted settlement checks and other circumstantial facts, and that various defense objections including claims of prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit.
This case was a Federal Tort Claims Act suit brought by Frederick T. Harrigan, a quadriplegic veteran, against the United States alleging that Philadelphia VA Hospital residents performed a bilateral ureteroileostomy (urinary diversion surgery) in 1967 without his informed consent and were negligent for not attempting more conservative treatments such as catheter clamping trials or transferring him to a spinal cord injury center. After a bench trial the court entered judgment for the defendant. The court found that the operation was medically necessary to eliminate an indwelling catheter and prevent renal infection, that alternatives were not indicated by the plaintiff's autonomic neurogenic bladder, and that the plaintiff had received adequate disclosure of the procedure's nature, risks, benefits, and reversibility before giving voluntary consent.
In Chresfield v. United States, the petitioner, who had been convicted in 1961 on two Mann Act counts and served his concurrent two-year sentences, filed a pro se motion seeking an out-of-time appeal or, alternatively, to vacate the judgment via coram nobis, claiming his retained counsel failed to file a notice of appeal despite his request. The court treated the filing as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) but denied relief. It reasoned that although the constitutional right to appellate counsel applies retroactively, the petitioner had not shown fundamental error warranting the extraordinary writ, as he was represented at sentencing, informed of his appeal rights, knew of those rights, was not indigent at the time, alleged no trial errors for appeal, and had not pursued relief earlier despite the opportunity.
The case involved a dispute over a $100,000 surety bond issued by defendant Insurance Co. of North America to plaintiff Siata International U.S.A. Inc. to guarantee delivery of 1,250 cars from an Italian manufacturer under a supply contract. After the manufacturer failed to deliver 589 vehicles, the plaintiff sued on the bond following the defendant's refusal to pay, and a jury found liability and determined the number of undelivered cars. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, challenging the court's interpretation of the bond's repayment condition, evidentiary rulings, and other issues. Applying Pennsylvania law due to the state's significant contacts with the parties and transaction, the court denied the motions, holding that its bond interpretation was correct, the evidence was properly admitted, and diversity jurisdiction was established.
The case involved William Kros, who was charged with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1461 by knowingly using the mail to deliver obscene films. The court found the defendant not guilty. Government agents from the Post Office Department had joined a swingers club magazine under a false name, placed their own advertisement seeking correspondence and photos, and then corresponded with the defendant after he responded by offering to sell films. The core reasoning was that this conduct constituted entrapment because the government actively induced and promoted the crime rather than merely detecting preexisting criminal activity by someone not otherwise predisposed to commit it.