context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The dates of a public official's term of office are adjudicative facts within the meaning of this rule. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "154 P.2d 48, 50",
"parenthetical": "supreme court took judicial notice of district attorney's term of office",
"sentence": "See Larsen v. Archdiocese of Denver, 631 P.2d 1163, 1164 (Colo.App. 1981) (court may take judicial notice of term of public office); cf. Lovato v. Johnson, 617 P.2d 1203, 1204 (Colo.1980) (court properly took judicial notice that Utah judge was a \"magistrate\" under Utah law); People ex rel. Flanders v. Neary, 113 Colo. 12, 16, 154 P.2d 48, 50 (1944) (supreme court took judicial notice of district attorney's term of office)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "631 P.2d 1163, 1164",
"parenthetical": "court may take judicial notice of term of public office",
"sentence": "See Larsen v. Archdiocese of Denver, 631 P.2d 1163, 1164 (Colo.App. 1981) (court may take judicial notice of term of public office); cf. Lovato v. Johnson, 617 P.2d 1203, 1204 (Colo.1980) (court properly took judicial notice that Utah judge was a \"magistrate\" under Utah law); People ex rel. Flanders v. Neary, 113 Colo. 12, 16, 154 P.2d 48, 50 (1944) (supreme court took judicial notice of district attorney's term of office)."
} | 8,364,376 | b |
In addition, we note that the statute has been amended on numerous occasions subsequent to our Supreme Court's 1926 pronouncement in Murphy. In each of these subsequent enactments, the underlying language of the time limitation has not been significantly changed or clarified. We may presume, therefore, that the action of the General Assembly in re-enacting the statute, including the clause in question, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Murphy, was done with knowledge of and in the light of that decision. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "146 Conn. 149, 156",
"parenthetical": "action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "222 Conn. 269, 279",
"parenthetical": "\"the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute\"",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | 4,062,820 | a |
In addition, we note that the statute has been amended on numerous occasions subsequent to our Supreme Court's 1926 pronouncement in Murphy. In each of these subsequent enactments, the underlying language of the time limitation has not been significantly changed or clarified. We may presume, therefore, that the action of the General Assembly in re-enacting the statute, including the clause in question, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Murphy, was done with knowledge of and in the light of that decision. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "146 Conn. 149, 156",
"parenthetical": "action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute\"",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | 4,062,820 | a |
In addition, we note that the statute has been amended on numerous occasions subsequent to our Supreme Court's 1926 pronouncement in Murphy. In each of these subsequent enactments, the underlying language of the time limitation has not been significantly changed or clarified. We may presume, therefore, that the action of the General Assembly in re-enacting the statute, including the clause in question, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Murphy, was done with knowledge of and in the light of that decision. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "222 Conn. 269, 279",
"parenthetical": "\"the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute\"",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | 4,062,820 | b |
In addition, we note that the statute has been amended on numerous occasions subsequent to our Supreme Court's 1926 pronouncement in Murphy. In each of these subsequent enactments, the underlying language of the time limitation has not been significantly changed or clarified. We may presume, therefore, that the action of the General Assembly in re-enacting the statute, including the clause in question, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Murphy, was done with knowledge of and in the light of that decision. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute\"",
"sentence": "See Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 156, 148 A.2d 334 (1959) (action of legislature in amending statute regulating braking systems presumed to have been enacted in light of judicial decisions); see also Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 279, 610 A.2d 584 (1992) (“the legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial interpretations of a statute”). As such, the fact that the General Assembly failed to repudiate Murphy in its subsequent amendments to § 31-301 bolsters our conclusion that in addition to being binding precedent, Murphy's interpretation of the statute remains accurate."
} | 4,062,820 | a |
. This case is distinguishable from cases where the alien filed a motion to reopen during the seven-month window, but explicitly requested a stay of the voluntary departure period pending adjudication of the motion indicating that the alien had no intention to relinquish the voluntary departure agreement. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding the BIA did not err in denying alien's motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen",
"sentence": "See Blackman v. Att'y Gen., 414 Fed.Appx. 415 (3d Cir.2011) (holding BIA did not err in determining request for stay of voluntary departure is not an implicit request for a withdrawal of voluntary departure); see also Ramirez-Mena v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 434 (5th Cir.2009) (holding the BIA did not err in denying alien's motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen); Rojo-Resendiz v. Mukasey, 297 Fed.Appx. 292 (5th Cir.2008) (same)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding BIA did not err in determining request for stay of voluntary departure is not an implicit request for a withdrawal of voluntary departure",
"sentence": "See Blackman v. Att'y Gen., 414 Fed.Appx. 415 (3d Cir.2011) (holding BIA did not err in determining request for stay of voluntary departure is not an implicit request for a withdrawal of voluntary departure); see also Ramirez-Mena v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 434 (5th Cir.2009) (holding the BIA did not err in denying alien's motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen); Rojo-Resendiz v. Mukasey, 297 Fed.Appx. 292 (5th Cir.2008) (same)."
} | 3,923,724 | b |
Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence, beyond her conclusory suppositions, that part-time positions existed in February 1993 or May 1993, the times when she was placed on medical leave. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | 841,840 | a |
Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence, beyond her conclusory suppositions, that part-time positions existed in February 1993 or May 1993, the times when she was placed on medical leave. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94",
"parenthetical": "employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | 841,840 | a |
Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence, beyond her conclusory suppositions, that part-time positions existed in February 1993 or May 1993, the times when she was placed on medical leave. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee",
"sentence": "See Howell v. Michelin Tire Corp., 860 F.Supp. 1488 (M.D.Ala.1994) (reasonable accommodation does not require that employer create a light-duty position or new permanent position for disabled employee); see also Reigel v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of N.C., 859 F.Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C.1994) (ADA does not require employer to make fundamental or substantial modifications in its operations to assure every disabled individual the benefit of employment); compare Tuck v. HCA Health Services of Tenn., 842 F.Supp. 988, 993-94 (M.D.Tenn.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 465 (1993) (employer hospital failed to reasonably accommodate when did not offer nurse opportunity for reduced shifts being advertised)."
} | 841,840 | b |
.The conclusion that a court cannot dismiss a habeas petition sua sponte based on an unpleaded affirmative defense except as a matter of preliminary review is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that a "court of appeals is not 'required' to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "169 F.3d 301, 301",
"parenthetical": "\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\"",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91",
"parenthetical": "refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | 940,836 | b |
.The conclusion that a court cannot dismiss a habeas petition sua sponte based on an unpleaded affirmative defense except as a matter of preliminary review is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that a "court of appeals is not 'required' to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "169 F.3d 301, 301",
"parenthetical": "\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\"",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | 940,836 | a |
.The conclusion that a court cannot dismiss a habeas petition sua sponte based on an unpleaded affirmative defense except as a matter of preliminary review is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that a "court of appeals is not 'required' to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "169 F.3d 301, 301",
"parenthetical": "\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\"",
"sentence": "Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89, 90-91, 118 S.Ct. 478, 139 L.Ed.2d 444 (1997) (refusing to consider the broader question of whether a court of appeals may raise a procedural default sua sponte); see also Fisher, 169 F.3d at 301 (\"We conclude, however, that even if we do have discretion in some circumstances to apply the procedural bar where the state has waived the defense in the district court, we will not exercise such discretion in this case.\")."
} | 940,836 | a |
We reject plaintiff's contention that she is entitled to damages for her criminal trials, conviction, incarceration, and the resulting aggravation of her Rape Trauma Syndrome. The intervening acts of the prosecutor, grand jury, judge and jury -- assuming that these court officials acted without malice that caused them to abuse their powers -- each break the chain of causation unless plaintiff can show that these intervening acts were the result of deception or undue pressure by the defendant policemen. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "in section 1983 action based on false arrest, grand jury or other independent intermediary breaks chain of causation unless defendant policemen mislead intermediary",
"sentence": "See Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.1986); Duncan v. Nelson, 466 F.2d 939 (7th Cir.1972); see also Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir.1988) (in section 1983 action based on false arrest, grand jury or other independent intermediary breaks chain of causation unless defendant policemen mislead intermediary); Scanlon v. Flynn, 465 F.Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (stating that under New York law, damages for false arrest are measured only to time of arraignment or indictment because, after such an evaluation, subsequent detention is attributed to independent, supervening determination of probable cause, not to earlier improper arrest); cf. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1988) (decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information",
"sentence": "See Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.1986); Duncan v. Nelson, 466 F.2d 939 (7th Cir.1972); see also Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir.1988) (in section 1983 action based on false arrest, grand jury or other independent intermediary breaks chain of causation unless defendant policemen mislead intermediary); Scanlon v. Flynn, 465 F.Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (stating that under New York law, damages for false arrest are measured only to time of arraignment or indictment because, after such an evaluation, subsequent detention is attributed to independent, supervening determination of probable cause, not to earlier improper arrest); cf. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1988) (decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information)."
} | 10,534,685 | a |
We reject plaintiff's contention that she is entitled to damages for her criminal trials, conviction, incarceration, and the resulting aggravation of her Rape Trauma Syndrome. The intervening acts of the prosecutor, grand jury, judge and jury -- assuming that these court officials acted without malice that caused them to abuse their powers -- each break the chain of causation unless plaintiff can show that these intervening acts were the result of deception or undue pressure by the defendant policemen. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information",
"sentence": "See Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.1986); Duncan v. Nelson, 466 F.2d 939 (7th Cir.1972); see also Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir.1988) (in section 1983 action based on false arrest, grand jury or other independent intermediary breaks chain of causation unless defendant policemen mislead intermediary); Scanlon v. Flynn, 465 F.Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (stating that under New York law, damages for false arrest are measured only to time of arraignment or indictment because, after such an evaluation, subsequent detention is attributed to independent, supervening determination of probable cause, not to earlier improper arrest); cf. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1988) (decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "stating that under New York law, damages for false arrest are measured only to time of arraignment or indictment because, after such an evaluation, subsequent detention is attributed to independent, supervening determination of probable cause, not to earlier improper arrest",
"sentence": "See Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.1986); Duncan v. Nelson, 466 F.2d 939 (7th Cir.1972); see also Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir.1988) (in section 1983 action based on false arrest, grand jury or other independent intermediary breaks chain of causation unless defendant policemen mislead intermediary); Scanlon v. Flynn, 465 F.Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (stating that under New York law, damages for false arrest are measured only to time of arraignment or indictment because, after such an evaluation, subsequent detention is attributed to independent, supervening determination of probable cause, not to earlier improper arrest); cf. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir.1988) (decision of prosecutor to charge or grand jury to indict does not shield police officer who deliberately supplied misleading information)."
} | 10,534,685 | b |
Defendants contend that they were not subpoenaed or directed by a court to furnish the information sought by the Roberts plaintiffs in their discovery requests. They also submit that the Indictment is overbroad, charging them not only with concealing and destroying documents requested by the Roberts plaintiffs, but also with concealing and destroying documents likely to be requested by them. But the law is clear that neither a subpoena nor a court order directing the production of documents must be issued or served as a prerequisite to a SS 1503 prosecution, and that the concealment and destruction of documents likely to be sought by subpoena is actionable under the statute. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "934 F.2d 450, 450",
"parenthetical": "destroying documents in anticipation of a subpoena can constitute obstruction",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Ruggiero, 934 F.2d at 450 (destroying documents in anticipation of a subpoena can constitute obstruction); Gravely, 840 F.2d at 1160 (under § 1503, documents destroyed do not have to be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware that the grand jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); see also Wilder, 143 F. at 442 (inducing witness not under subpoena not to testify was actionable as an obstruction under the statute: “In the absence of a federal statute of the scope of this clause, a party to a pending civil suit in federal court, so long as process for persons intended to be used as witnesses by his adversary had not been issued, could legally induce all such persons to conceal themselves or otherwise evade service of process. But that such acts, if successful, would impede and obstruct the administration of justice, is quite apparent”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "143 F. 442, 442",
"parenthetical": "inducing witness not under subpoena not to testify was actionable as an obstruction under the statute: \"In the absence of a federal statute of the scope of this clause, a party to a pending civil suit in federal court, so long as process for persons intended to be used as witnesses by his adversary had not been issued, could legally induce all such persons to conceal themselves or otherwise evade service of process. But that such acts, if successful, would impede and obstruct the administration of justice, is quite apparent\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Ruggiero, 934 F.2d at 450 (destroying documents in anticipation of a subpoena can constitute obstruction); Gravely, 840 F.2d at 1160 (under § 1503, documents destroyed do not have to be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware that the grand jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); see also Wilder, 143 F. at 442 (inducing witness not under subpoena not to testify was actionable as an obstruction under the statute: “In the absence of a federal statute of the scope of this clause, a party to a pending civil suit in federal court, so long as process for persons intended to be used as witnesses by his adversary had not been issued, could legally induce all such persons to conceal themselves or otherwise evade service of process. But that such acts, if successful, would impede and obstruct the administration of justice, is quite apparent”)."
} | 1,575,313 | a |
Pl.'s Dep. 228:15-21. Given the lack of corroboration of the alleged oral precondition, as well as the plaintiffs own testimony, at both his deposition and in his affidavit, acknowledging that, as a manager, he was no longer subject to union protection, the plaintiffs recollection of an oral precondition, without more, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs at-will employment was specially conditioned for him to receive the graduated warnings prior to termination to which union members were entitled. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36",
"parenthetical": "observing that when a \"declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,\" it is \"of little value at the summary judgment stage\"",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "801 F.3d 298, 298-99",
"parenthetical": "finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | 4,160,419 | b |
Pl.'s Dep. 228:15-21. Given the lack of corroboration of the alleged oral precondition, as well as the plaintiffs own testimony, at both his deposition and in his affidavit, acknowledging that, as a manager, he was no longer subject to union protection, the plaintiffs recollection of an oral precondition, without more, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs at-will employment was specially conditioned for him to receive the graduated warnings prior to termination to which union members were entitled. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105",
"parenthetical": "\"Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.\"",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "801 F.3d 298, 298-99",
"parenthetical": "finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | 4,160,419 | b |
Pl.'s Dep. 228:15-21. Given the lack of corroboration of the alleged oral precondition, as well as the plaintiffs own testimony, at both his deposition and in his affidavit, acknowledging that, as a manager, he was no longer subject to union protection, the plaintiffs recollection of an oral precondition, without more, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs at-will employment was specially conditioned for him to receive the graduated warnings prior to termination to which union members were entitled. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36",
"parenthetical": "observing that when a \"declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,\" it is \"of little value at the summary judgment stage\"",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2015 WL 5474078, at *6",
"parenthetical": "finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | 4,160,419 | b |
Pl.'s Dep. 228:15-21. Given the lack of corroboration of the alleged oral precondition, as well as the plaintiffs own testimony, at both his deposition and in his affidavit, acknowledging that, as a manager, he was no longer subject to union protection, the plaintiffs recollection of an oral precondition, without more, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs at-will employment was specially conditioned for him to receive the graduated warnings prior to termination to which union members were entitled. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105",
"parenthetical": "\"Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.\"",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2015 WL 5474078, at *6",
"parenthetical": "finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer",
"sentence": "See Burley, 801 F.3d at 298-99, 2015 WL 5474078, at *6 (finding that plaintiffs observations, without more, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment for employer); see also Turner v. Shinseki, 824 F.Supp.2d 99, 118 (D.D.C.2011) (“[W]hen considering a summary judgment motion ‘the Court need not rely on any conclu-sory allegations unsupported by factual [evidence].’ ”) (quoting Harris v. Wack-enhut Servs., Inc., 648 F.Supp.2d 53, 58 (D.D.C.2009)) (latter alteration in the original); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated,” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”); Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007) (“Self-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.”); Clampitt v. Am. Univ., 957 A.2d 23, 37 (D.C.2008) (finding plaintiff could not “avoid summary judgment” with claimed oral agreement regarding term of employment since “the inferences she asked the court to draw had to be based on more than speculation” and “[s]he was not entitled to avoid summary judgment by merely asserting that the jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the defendants” since “ ‘the mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment."
} | 4,160,419 | b |
As is readily apparent from the analysis quoted above, the Wilder Court made perfectly clear that in concluding that "there can be little doubt that healthcare providers are the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment," it was relying on the language in the Boren Amendment requiring a state plan to provide for "payment of the hospital services, nursing facility services, and services in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded provided under the plan." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "6 F.3d 519, 526",
"parenthetical": "\"Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement.\"",
"sentence": "See Ark. Med. Soc’y, Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519, 526 (8th Cir.1993) (“Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement.”); see also Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. v. Hood, 235 F.3d 908, 925 (5th Cir.2000) (“[T]he [Wilder] Court concluded that there was little doubt that the providers were the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because it established a system for reimbursement of providers and was phrased in terms bene-fitting health care providers, in that it required a state plan to provide for their payment.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Visiting Nurse Ass’n of N. Shore, Inc. v. Bullen, 93 F.3d 997, 1004 (1st Cir.1996) (“The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute ‘is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,’ and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment ‘establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.’ ”) (emphasis omitted)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "93 F.3d 997, 1004",
"parenthetical": "\"The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute 'is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,' and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment 'establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.' \"",
"sentence": "See Ark. Med. Soc’y, Inc. v. Reynolds, 6 F.3d 519, 526 (8th Cir.1993) (“Wilder concluded that institutional providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because the Amendment concerned their reimbursement.”); see also Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc. v. Hood, 235 F.3d 908, 925 (5th Cir.2000) (“[T]he [Wilder] Court concluded that there was little doubt that the providers were the intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment because it established a system for reimbursement of providers and was phrased in terms bene-fitting health care providers, in that it required a state plan to provide for their payment.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Visiting Nurse Ass’n of N. Shore, Inc. v. Bullen, 93 F.3d 997, 1004 (1st Cir.1996) (“The Wilder Court ... observed that the statute ‘is phrased in terms benefitting health care providers,’ and ... then proceeded to illustrate how the plain language of the Boren Amendment ‘establishes a system for reimbursement of providers.’ ”) (emphasis omitted)."
} | 9,510,408 | a |
These cardholders have no other realistic source of information regarding this litigation. Thus, in light of the cardholders' dependence on defendants for their future credit needs and information, this Court finds that Chase's and Citibank's actions are potentially coercive and improper. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2001 WL 1035132, at *4",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,\" because \"the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.\"",
"sentence": "See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "751 F.2d 1203, 1203",
"parenthetical": "\"Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.\"",
"sentence": "See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion)."
} | 9,013,416 | a |
These cardholders have no other realistic source of information regarding this litigation. Thus, in light of the cardholders' dependence on defendants for their future credit needs and information, this Court finds that Chase's and Citibank's actions are potentially coercive and improper. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2001 WL 1035132, at *4",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,\" because \"the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.\"",
"sentence": "See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "156 F.R.D. 633, 633",
"parenthetical": "noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion",
"sentence": "See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion)."
} | 9,013,416 | a |
We do so, however, because Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for each of the claims in Redmond's complaint. Accordingly, we need not and do not reach the question of whether Fulwood is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken during his tenure as Chairman of .the United States Parole Commission. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "685 F.3d 1110, 1113",
"parenthetical": "\"Because we conclude that the [Parole Commission] defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we do not address the issue of absolute immunity.\"",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Reilly, 685 F.3d 1110, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“Because we conclude that the [Parole Commission] defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we do not address the issue of absolute immunity.”); see also Radtke v. Caschetta, 822 F.3d 571, 573 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e are free to affirm the lower court on alternative grounds.”) (citing RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 682 F.3d 1043, 1045 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2012))."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[W]e are free to affirm the lower court on alternative grounds.\"",
"sentence": "See Taylor v. Reilly, 685 F.3d 1110, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“Because we conclude that the [Parole Commission] defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we do not address the issue of absolute immunity.”); see also Radtke v. Caschetta, 822 F.3d 571, 573 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e are free to affirm the lower court on alternative grounds.”) (citing RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 682 F.3d 1043, 1045 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2012))."
} | 12,276,251 | a |
Under this rule, an expert may express an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay evidence so long as that evidence is of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Here, Blum's report and, especially, the supporting documents are the kind of evidence on which a forensic chemist reasonably relies in forming an opinion on the composition of a particular substance. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "647 F.2d 1048, 1051",
"parenthetical": "under rule 703, \"[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist's analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter's test results\"",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "806 F.2d 39, 42",
"parenthetical": "upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | 3,499,414 | b |
Under this rule, an expert may express an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay evidence so long as that evidence is of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Here, Blum's report and, especially, the supporting documents are the kind of evidence on which a forensic chemist reasonably relies in forming an opinion on the composition of a particular substance. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "647 F.2d 1048, 1051",
"parenthetical": "under rule 703, \"[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist's analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter's test results\"",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | 3,499,414 | b |
Under this rule, an expert may express an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay evidence so long as that evidence is of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Here, Blum's report and, especially, the supporting documents are the kind of evidence on which a forensic chemist reasonably relies in forming an opinion on the composition of a particular substance. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "647 F.2d 1048, 1051",
"parenthetical": "under rule 703, \"[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist's analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter's test results\"",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | 3,499,414 | a |
Under this rule, an expert may express an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay evidence so long as that evidence is of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Here, Blum's report and, especially, the supporting documents are the kind of evidence on which a forensic chemist reasonably relies in forming an opinion on the composition of a particular substance. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "647 F.2d 1048, 1051",
"parenthetical": "under rule 703, \"[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist's analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter's test results\"",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates",
"sentence": "See Reardon v. Manson, 806 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1986) (upholding admission of drug composition testimony by supervising toxicologist who based his opinion on results of tests, including chromatography and spectrophotometry, performed by subordinates), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987); see also United States v. Posey, 647 F.2d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir.1981) (under rule 703, “[i]t is quite reasonable for a chemist to review another chemist’s analysis when forming an opinion as to the veracity of the latter’s test results”)."
} | 3,499,414 | b |
Kearney does not point to any evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual question as to whether the defendants' explanation is a pretext for discrimination. That some of the candidates had blemishes on their redore! of that Kearney feels that the selection process should have produced a different result does not show the falsity of the proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the promotion decisions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "802 F.2d 638, 641",
"parenthetical": "\"The employer need not prove that the person promoted had superior objective qualifications, or that it made the wisest choice, but only that the reasons for the decision were nondiscriminatory.\"",
"sentence": "See Davis v. State Univ. of N.Y., 802 F.2d 638, 641 (2d Cir.1986) (“The employer need not prove that the person promoted had superior objective qualifications, or that it made the wisest choice, but only that the reasons for the decision were nondiscriminatory.”); see also Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2001) (stating that a material factual issue can be created only in a situation not present here — where “the plaintiffs credentials [are] so superior to the credentials of the person selected for the job that ‘no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.’ ”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "243 F.3d 93, 103",
"parenthetical": "stating that a material factual issue can be created only in a situation not present here -- where \"the plaintiffs credentials [are] so superior to the credentials of the person selected for the job that 'no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.' \"",
"sentence": "See Davis v. State Univ. of N.Y., 802 F.2d 638, 641 (2d Cir.1986) (“The employer need not prove that the person promoted had superior objective qualifications, or that it made the wisest choice, but only that the reasons for the decision were nondiscriminatory.”); see also Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2001) (stating that a material factual issue can be created only in a situation not present here — where “the plaintiffs credentials [are] so superior to the credentials of the person selected for the job that ‘no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.’ ”)."
} | 3,728,237 | a |
The Appellants raised this argument in the context of their general contention that they were entitled to summary judgment based on official immunity. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "287 Ga. 618, 620",
"parenthetical": "\"Where there is an established policy requiring an official to take specified action in a specified situation, the policy creates a ministerial duty on the part of the official to perform the specified task.\"",
"sentence": "See Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 752 (6) (452 SE2d 476) (1994) (“The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.”) (citations omitted); see also Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 620 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“Where there is an established policy requiring an official to take specified action in a specified situation, the policy creates a ministerial duty on the part of the official to perform the specified task.”) (citations omitted); Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480, 482 (2) (614 SE2d 761) (2005) (“A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.”) (citation and punctuation omitted)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "264 Ga. 744, 752",
"parenthetical": "\"The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.\"",
"sentence": "See Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 752 (6) (452 SE2d 476) (1994) (“The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.”) (citations omitted); see also Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 620 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“Where there is an established policy requiring an official to take specified action in a specified situation, the policy creates a ministerial duty on the part of the official to perform the specified task.”) (citations omitted); Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480, 482 (2) (614 SE2d 761) (2005) (“A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.”) (citation and punctuation omitted)."
} | 12,441,555 | b |
The Appellants raised this argument in the context of their general contention that they were entitled to summary judgment based on official immunity. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "264 Ga. 744, 752",
"parenthetical": "\"The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.\"",
"sentence": "See Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 752 (6) (452 SE2d 476) (1994) (“The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.”) (citations omitted); see also Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 620 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“Where there is an established policy requiring an official to take specified action in a specified situation, the policy creates a ministerial duty on the part of the official to perform the specified task.”) (citations omitted); Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480, 482 (2) (614 SE2d 761) (2005) (“A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.”) (citation and punctuation omitted)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "279 Ga. 480, 482",
"parenthetical": "\"A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.\"",
"sentence": "See Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 752 (6) (452 SE2d 476) (1994) (“The doctrine of official immunity... provides that while a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.”) (citations omitted); see also Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 620 (697 SE2d 775) (2010) (“Where there is an established policy requiring an official to take specified action in a specified situation, the policy creates a ministerial duty on the part of the official to perform the specified task.”) (citations omitted); Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480, 482 (2) (614 SE2d 761) (2005) (“A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.”) (citation and punctuation omitted)."
} | 12,441,555 | a |
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment as to the trial court's $20,000 valuation of the tools and remand the case for further proceedings as to this issue. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "768 So.2d 472, 474",
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife's jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband's \"unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife\"",
"sentence": "See Lassett v. Lassett, 768 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife’s jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband’s “unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife”); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that the former wife’s financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding “each piece of jewelry and its value” and “each piece of furniture and household item,” holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties’ furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry “it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "80 So.3d 405, 407-10",
"parenthetical": "noting that the former wife's financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding \"each piece of jewelry and its value\" and \"each piece of furniture and household item,\" holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties' furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry \"it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination\"",
"sentence": "See Lassett v. Lassett, 768 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife’s jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband’s “unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife”); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that the former wife’s financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding “each piece of jewelry and its value” and “each piece of furniture and household item,” holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties’ furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry “it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination”)."
} | 7,002,779 | a |
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment as to the trial court's $20,000 valuation of the tools and remand the case for further proceedings as to this issue. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "768 So.2d 472, 474",
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife's jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband's \"unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife\"",
"sentence": "See Lassett v. Lassett, 768 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife’s jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband’s “unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife”); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that the former wife’s financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding “each piece of jewelry and its value” and “each piece of furniture and household item,” holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties’ furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry “it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "727 So.2d 972, 974-75",
"parenthetical": "rejecting the husband's argument that the assignment of $10,000 worth of furniture and furnishings was unsupported by competent evidence where the wife introduced photographs of the furniture and her financial affidavit valued the furniture at $10,000",
"sentence": "Cf. Noone v. Noone, 727 So.2d 972, 974-75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (rejecting the husband’s argument that the assignment of $10,000 worth of furniture and furnishings was unsupported by competent evidence where the wife introduced photographs of the furniture and her financial affidavit valued the furniture at $10,000)."
} | 7,002,779 | a |
Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment as to the trial court's $20,000 valuation of the tools and remand the case for further proceedings as to this issue. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "727 So.2d 972, 974-75",
"parenthetical": "rejecting the husband's argument that the assignment of $10,000 worth of furniture and furnishings was unsupported by competent evidence where the wife introduced photographs of the furniture and her financial affidavit valued the furniture at $10,000",
"sentence": "Cf. Noone v. Noone, 727 So.2d 972, 974-75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (rejecting the husband’s argument that the assignment of $10,000 worth of furniture and furnishings was unsupported by competent evidence where the wife introduced photographs of the furniture and her financial affidavit valued the furniture at $10,000)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "80 So.3d 405, 407-10",
"parenthetical": "noting that the former wife's financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding \"each piece of jewelry and its value\" and \"each piece of furniture and household item,\" holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties' furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry \"it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination\"",
"sentence": "See Lassett v. Lassett, 768 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wife’s jewelry at $10,000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husband’s “unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife”); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that the former wife’s financial affidavit reflected that the parties owned $10,000 worth of jewelry and that she testified regarding “each piece of jewelry and its value” and “each piece of furniture and household item,” holding that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties’ furniture and jewelry, and explaining that because the parties presented evidence as to the identity and value of the furniture and jewelry “it seems there is sufficient evidence for the trial court to make this determination”)."
} | 7,002,779 | b |
CDN may eventually be entitled to a return of excess or unclaimed funds. See Six Mex. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "129 F.3d 1026, 1027",
"parenthetical": "assuming that when absent class members do not have a calculable interest in unclaimed money, the balance of a fund is returned to defendants",
"sentence": "Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir.1990) (“Reversion to the defendant may be appropriate when deterrence is not a goal of the statute or is not required by the circumstances.”); cf. Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 129 F.3d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (assuming that when absent class members do not have a calculable interest in unclaimed money, the balance of a fund is returned to defendants). The district court, however, has entered an order providing that it will await the running of the statute of limitations on the filing of individual suits against CDN before calculating any distribution of excess and unclaimed funds."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "904 F.2d 1301, 1308",
"parenthetical": "\"Reversion to the defendant may be appropriate when deterrence is not a goal of the statute or is not required by the circumstances.\"",
"sentence": "Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir.1990) (“Reversion to the defendant may be appropriate when deterrence is not a goal of the statute or is not required by the circumstances.”); cf. Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 129 F.3d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (assuming that when absent class members do not have a calculable interest in unclaimed money, the balance of a fund is returned to defendants). The district court, however, has entered an order providing that it will await the running of the statute of limitations on the filing of individual suits against CDN before calculating any distribution of excess and unclaimed funds."
} | 3,791,981 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 3,465,174 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23",
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | a |
The prosecution, noting in its brief that the instruction was "perhaps ill-advised" and may have been "overstated," virtually concedes that the district court's instruction was erroneous. The prosecution does not dispute that although ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, there are important exceptions. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes \"wholly passive\" conduct by a person who is \"unaware of any wrongdoing\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (conviction under statute prohibiting food stamp fraud requires proof that the accused knew his use was unauthorized); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957) (conviction for failing to register as a felon requires proof of knowledge of obligation to register); cf. United States v. Holland, 810 F.2d 1215, 1222-23 (D.C.Cir.) (ignorance of the law may be an excuse where legislation criminalizes “wholly passive” conduct by a person who is “unaware of any wrongdoing”), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 854 (1987)."
} | 10,532,912 | b |
"Showup identification procedures that occurred within temporal and geographic proximity to the crime have generally not been found to be unduly suggestive." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2008 WL 4960454, at *23",
"parenthetical": "holding that a show-up identification that occurred less than ninety minutes after the commission of the crime and within one mile of the crime scene was not unnecessarily suggestive because of its close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime",
"sentence": "Warren, 2008 WL 4960454, at *23 (holding that a show-up identification that occurred less than ninety minutes after the commission of the crime and within one mile of the crime scene was not unnecessarily suggestive because of its close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime); see also Bautista, 23 F.3d at 730 (affirming admission of on-scene show-up identification finding that “[t]he fact that the suspects were handcuffed, in the custody of law enforcement officers, and illuminated by flashlights also did not render the pretrial identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive”); Charlemagne v. Goord, 05-CV-9890, 2008 WL 2971768, at *15 (S.D.N.Y."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "23 F.3d 730, 730",
"parenthetical": "affirming admission of on-scene show-up identification finding that \"[t]he fact that the suspects were handcuffed, in the custody of law enforcement officers, and illuminated by flashlights also did not render the pretrial identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive\"",
"sentence": "Warren, 2008 WL 4960454, at *23 (holding that a show-up identification that occurred less than ninety minutes after the commission of the crime and within one mile of the crime scene was not unnecessarily suggestive because of its close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime); see also Bautista, 23 F.3d at 730 (affirming admission of on-scene show-up identification finding that “[t]he fact that the suspects were handcuffed, in the custody of law enforcement officers, and illuminated by flashlights also did not render the pretrial identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive”); Charlemagne v. Goord, 05-CV-9890, 2008 WL 2971768, at *15 (S.D.N.Y."
} | 4,344,728 | a |
Although this contention may be correct, it misses the point. Shore does not seek to hold the federal agencies vicariously liable for the torts of the independent contractors; rather, it imputes primary negligence to the federal agencies in the selection of the contractor, a viable theory under the Act. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "412 U.S. 532, 532-33",
"parenthetical": "government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent",
"sentence": "See Logue v. United States, supra, 412 U.S. at 532-33, 93 S.Ct. at 2222 (government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent); cf. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417, 428-30 (5th Cir.1979) (employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees’ acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "604 F.2d 417, 428-30",
"parenthetical": "employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees' acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor",
"sentence": "See Logue v. United States, supra, 412 U.S. at 532-33, 93 S.Ct. at 2222 (government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent); cf. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417, 428-30 (5th Cir.1979) (employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees’ acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor)."
} | 3,919,479 | a |
Although this contention may be correct, it misses the point. Shore does not seek to hold the federal agencies vicariously liable for the torts of the independent contractors; rather, it imputes primary negligence to the federal agencies in the selection of the contractor, a viable theory under the Act. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "604 F.2d 417, 428-30",
"parenthetical": "employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees' acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor",
"sentence": "See Logue v. United States, supra, 412 U.S. at 532-33, 93 S.Ct. at 2222 (government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent); cf. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417, 428-30 (5th Cir.1979) (employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees’ acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "93 S.Ct. 2222, 2222",
"parenthetical": "government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent",
"sentence": "See Logue v. United States, supra, 412 U.S. at 532-33, 93 S.Ct. at 2222 (government not liable for negligence of employees of independent contractors, but remand to determine if federal employee was negligent); cf. Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417, 428-30 (5th Cir.1979) (employment of independent contractor does not insulate government from liability for its own employees’ acts of negligence that occur in connection with the work of the independent contractor)."
} | 3,919,479 | b |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "36 P.3d 11, 13-14",
"parenthetical": "evidence of store's failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "664 A.2d 846, 848",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "264 A.2d 799, 799-800",
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "36 P.3d 11, 13-14",
"parenthetical": "evidence of store's failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "664 A.2d 846, 848",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "264 A.2d 799, 799-800",
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | 1,605,902 | b |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "221 A.2d 515, 515",
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "36 P.3d 11, 13-14",
"parenthetical": "evidence of store's failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "221 A.2d 515, 515",
"parenthetical": "\"it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure\"",
"sentence": "See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "664 A.2d 846, 848",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "661 P.2d 76, 76",
"parenthetical": "notwithstanding plaintiff's inability to show defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "36 P.3d 11, 13-14",
"parenthetical": "evidence of store's failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "664 A.2d 846, 848",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "661 P.2d 76, 76",
"parenthetical": "notwithstanding plaintiff's inability to show defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | b |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "648 S.W.2d 292, 295",
"parenthetical": "even in absence of evidence showing store's actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store's failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "36 P.3d 11, 13-14",
"parenthetical": "evidence of store's failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | a |
P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "664 A.2d 846, 848",
"parenthetical": "plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "648 S.W.2d 292, 295",
"parenthetical": "even in absence of evidence showing store's actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store's failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed."
} | 1,605,902 | b |
See generally Utah R. Civ. P. 11. On August 26, 1991, the trial court granted the Kurzets' partial summary judgment motion, dismissing Bailey-Alien's mechanics' lien cause of action. Bailey-Alien then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dismissing the Mechanie[s'] Lien Claim, which the court later denied. Bailey-Alien did not seek appellate review of the trial court's denial of their reconsideration motion. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "920 P.2d 1159, 1161",
"parenthetical": "reviewing appellate court jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion to reconsider",
"sentence": "See Ross v. Schackel, 920 P.2d 1159, 1161 (Utah 1996) (reviewing appellate court jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion to reconsider); cf. Arnica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950, 970 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (“If Schettler believed the trial court erred in denying his first motion to set aside the default judgment, the appropriate remedy was by direct appeal_”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "768 P.2d 950, 970",
"parenthetical": "\"If Schettler believed the trial court erred in denying his first motion to set aside the default judgment, the appropriate remedy was by direct appeal_\"",
"sentence": "See Ross v. Schackel, 920 P.2d 1159, 1161 (Utah 1996) (reviewing appellate court jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion to reconsider); cf. Arnica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950, 970 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (“If Schettler believed the trial court erred in denying his first motion to set aside the default judgment, the appropriate remedy was by direct appeal_”)."
} | 11,895,203 | a |
As for whether the breach must be material to the transaction, we need not address this argument because the case at hand satisfied any such requirement. The very reason bribes were paid to the adjusters was to obtain favorable results in settlements. The insurance companies, acting as reasonable entities, were bound to have considered the fact that their employees had a financial interest in settling cases to be important information with respect to those settlements. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "786 F.2d 77, 80-81",
"parenthetical": "holding, in a case involving falsified insurance claims, that \"the government needed to prove only that [defendant] employed a deceptive scheme intending to prevent the insurer from determining for itself a fair value of recovery\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Dinome, 86 F.3d 277, 280 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming jury instruction charging that a representation was material if “a reasonable person might have considered [it] important in making a decision”); see also United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F.2d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.1986) (holding, in a case involving falsified insurance claims, that “the government needed to prove only that [defendant] employed a deceptive scheme intending to prevent the insurer from determining for itself a fair value of recovery”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "86 F.3d 277, 280",
"parenthetical": "affirming jury instruction charging that a representation was material if \"a reasonable person might have considered [it] important in making a decision\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Dinome, 86 F.3d 277, 280 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming jury instruction charging that a representation was material if “a reasonable person might have considered [it] important in making a decision”); see also United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F.2d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.1986) (holding, in a case involving falsified insurance claims, that “the government needed to prove only that [defendant] employed a deceptive scheme intending to prevent the insurer from determining for itself a fair value of recovery”)."
} | 153,664 | b |
This is the test urged upon us by Parks, and endorsed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. Under the "alternative avenues" test, a title of an expressive work will not be protected from a false advertising claim if there are sufficient alternative means for an artist to convey his or her idea. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "836 F.2d 397, 402",
"parenthetical": "creator of parody tee-shirts not protected by First Amendment because he could still produce parody editorials in books, magazines, or film",
"sentence": "See Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir.1987) (creator of parody tee-shirts not protected by First Amendment because he could still produce parody editorials in books, magazines, or film); Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Prods., Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 727, 734 (D.Minn.1998) (no First Amendment protection for an infringing movie title because there were other titles the producers could use); cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns, 28 F.3d 769, 776 (8th Cir.1994) (First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was “wholly unnecessary” to the parodist’s stated purpose)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "28 F.3d 769, 776",
"parenthetical": "First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was \"wholly unnecessary\" to the parodist's stated purpose",
"sentence": "See Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir.1987) (creator of parody tee-shirts not protected by First Amendment because he could still produce parody editorials in books, magazines, or film); Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Prods., Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 727, 734 (D.Minn.1998) (no First Amendment protection for an infringing movie title because there were other titles the producers could use); cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns, 28 F.3d 769, 776 (8th Cir.1994) (First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was “wholly unnecessary” to the parodist’s stated purpose)."
} | 9,125,451 | a |
This is the test urged upon us by Parks, and endorsed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. Under the "alternative avenues" test, a title of an expressive work will not be protected from a false advertising claim if there are sufficient alternative means for an artist to convey his or her idea. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "35 F.Supp.2d 727, 734",
"parenthetical": "no First Amendment protection for an infringing movie title because there were other titles the producers could use",
"sentence": "See Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir.1987) (creator of parody tee-shirts not protected by First Amendment because he could still produce parody editorials in books, magazines, or film); Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Prods., Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 727, 734 (D.Minn.1998) (no First Amendment protection for an infringing movie title because there were other titles the producers could use); cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns, 28 F.3d 769, 776 (8th Cir.1994) (First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was “wholly unnecessary” to the parodist’s stated purpose)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "28 F.3d 769, 776",
"parenthetical": "First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was \"wholly unnecessary\" to the parodist's stated purpose",
"sentence": "See Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir.1987) (creator of parody tee-shirts not protected by First Amendment because he could still produce parody editorials in books, magazines, or film); Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Prods., Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 727, 734 (D.Minn.1998) (no First Amendment protection for an infringing movie title because there were other titles the producers could use); cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns, 28 F.3d 769, 776 (8th Cir.1994) (First Amendment protection not available to parodist because the confusing trademark use was “wholly unnecessary” to the parodist’s stated purpose)."
} | 9,125,451 | a |
The federal government's immunity from state and local taxation is based upon the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. Art. VI, el. 2, and is therefore absolute. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "958 F.2d 555, 558",
"parenthetical": "noting that the Supreme Court has adopted a broad reading of \"the Supremacy Clause, viewing all state taxes on federal entities as insults to national sovereignty and impermissible burdens on federal operations\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Delaware, 958 F.2d 555, 558 (3d Cir.1992) (noting that the Supreme Court has adopted a broad reading of “the Supremacy Clause, viewing all state taxes on federal entities as insults to national sovereignty and impermissible burdens on federal operations”); see also United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 733, 102 S.Ct. 1373, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982) (noting that “the Court has never questioned the propriety of absolute federal immunity from state taxation”); United States v. City of Columbia, 914 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir.1990) (“Unlike the states’ immunity from federal taxation, which is somewhat limited, the United States’ immunity from state taxation is a ‘blanket immunity.’ ”) (citation omitted)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "455 U.S. 720, 733",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"the Court has never questioned the propriety of absolute federal immunity from state taxation\"",
"sentence": "See United States v. Delaware, 958 F.2d 555, 558 (3d Cir.1992) (noting that the Supreme Court has adopted a broad reading of “the Supremacy Clause, viewing all state taxes on federal entities as insults to national sovereignty and impermissible burdens on federal operations”); see also United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 733, 102 S.Ct. 1373, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982) (noting that “the Court has never questioned the propriety of absolute federal immunity from state taxation”); United States v. City of Columbia, 914 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir.1990) (“Unlike the states’ immunity from federal taxation, which is somewhat limited, the United States’ immunity from state taxation is a ‘blanket immunity.’ ”) (citation omitted)."
} | 4,124,920 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.