• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 84-98 of 1,846 results

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED

Document Sergio Fernando Lagos, Petitioner v. United States, 16-1519, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED (U.S. May. 29, 2018)
A broad reading would also require district courts to resolve diffi- cult, fact-intensive disputes about whether particular expenses “in- curred during” participation in a private investigation were in fact “necessary,” and about whether proceedings such as a licensing pro- ceeding or a Consumer Products Safety Commission hearing were sufficiently “related to the offense.” The Court’s narrower interpreta- tion avoids such controversies, which are often irrelevant to the vic- tim because over 90% of criminal restitution is never collected.
The petitioner, Sergio Fernando Lagos, was convicted of using a company that he controlled (Dry Van Logistics) to defraud a lender (General Electric Capital Corporation, or GE) of tens of millions of dollars.
The issue here concerns the part of the restitution order that requires Lagos to reimburse GE for expenses GE incurred during its own investigation of the fraud and during its participation in Dry Van Logistics’ bankruptcy proceedings.
The Government points out, in particular, that our narrow interpretation will sometimes leave a victim without a restitution remedy sufficient to cover some expenses (say, those related to his private investigation) which he undoubtedly incurred as a result of the offense.
The short, conclusive answer to that claim, however, lies in the fact that the statute refers to “necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the inves- tigation or prosecution of the offense.” §3663A(b)(4) (em- phasis added).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED

Document Sergio Fernando Lagos, Petitioner v. United States, 16-1519, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED (U.S. May. 29, 2018)
A broad reading would also require district courts to resolve diffi- cult, fact-intensive disputes about whether particular expenses “in- curred during” participation in a private investigation were in fact “necessary,” and about whether proceedings such as a licensing pro- ceeding or a Consumer Products Safety Commission hearing were sufficiently “related to the offense.” The Court’s narrower interpreta- tion avoids such controversies, which are often irrelevant to the vic- tim because over 90% of criminal restitution is never collected.
The petitioner, Sergio Fernando Lagos, was convicted of using a company that he controlled (Dry Van Logistics) to defraud a lender (General Electric Capital Corporation, or GE) of tens of millions of dollars.
The issue here concerns the part of the restitution order that requires Lagos to reimburse GE for expenses GE incurred during its own investigation of the fraud and during its participation in Dry Van Logistics’ bankruptcy proceedings.
The Government points out, in particular, that our narrow interpretation will sometimes leave a victim without a restitution remedy sufficient to cover some expenses (say, those related to his private investigation) which he undoubtedly incurred as a result of the offense.
The short, conclusive answer to that claim, however, lies in the fact that the statute refers to “necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the inves- tigation or prosecution of the offense.” §3663A(b)(4) (em- phasis added).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Gorsuch J

Document Charles Murphy, Petitioner v. Robert Smith, et al., 16-1067, Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Gorsuch J (U.S. Feb. 21, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Kennedy J

Document Joseph P. Murr, et al., Petitioners v. Wisconsin, et al., 15-214, Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Kennedy J (U.S. Jun. 23, 2017)
This area of the law is character- ized by “ad hoc, factual inquiries, designed to allow careful examina- tion and weighing of all the relevant circumstances.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 322 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the case now before the Court, petition- ers contend that governmental entities took their real property—an undeveloped residential lot—not by some physical occupation but instead by enacting burdensome regulations that forbid its improvement or separate sale because it is classified as substandard in size.
Lucas v. South Caro- lina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1014 (1992) (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted); accord, Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 7); see also Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 427 (1982).
This bottom-line conclusion does not trouble me; the majority presents a fair case that the Murrs can still make good use of both lots, and that the ordinance is a commonplace tool to preserve scenic areas, such as the Lower St. Croix River, for the benefit of landowners and the public alike.
These types of actions give rise to “per se taking[s]” because they are “perhaps the most serious form[s] of invasion of an owner’s property inter­ ests, depriving the owner of the rights to possess, use and dispose of the property.” Horne v. Department of Agricul- ture, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Kennedy J

Document Kentel Myrone Weaver, Petitioner v. Massachusetts, 16-240, Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Kennedy J (U.S. Jun. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Gorsuch J

Document Ricky Henson, et al., Petitioners v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 16-349, Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Gorsuch J (U.S. Jun. 12, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED

Document Shannon Nelson, Petitioner v. Colorado, 15-1256, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED (U.S. Apr. 19, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application to extend the time to file a - Lower Court Orders-Opinions

Document Demetrius Jackson, Petitioner v. Ohio, 18-1241, Application to extend the time to file a, Lower Court Orders-Opinions (U.S. Dec. 19, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Parish Ramon Carter - Proof of Service

Document Parish Ramon Carter, Petitioner v. Colorado, 17-634, Reply of petitioner Parish Ramon Carter, Proof of Service (U.S. Jan. 26, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of National

Document Kentel Myrone Weaver, Petitioner v. Massachusetts, 16-240, Brief amicus curiae of National (U.S. Mar. 3, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED

Document Doyle Randall Paroline, Petitioner v. United States, et al., 12-8561, Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED (U.S. Apr. 23, 2014)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED

Document Adoptive Couple, Petitioners v. Baby Girl, a Minor Child Under the Age of Fourteen Years, et al., 12-399, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED (U.S. Jun. 25, 2013)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED

Document Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., 11-345, Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED (U.S. Jun. 24, 2013)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Brennan Center for

Document Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., 11-345, Brief amici curiae of Brennan Center for (U.S. Aug. 13, 2012)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, Petitioner v. Eleanor Heald, et al.

Docket 03-1120, Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 4, 2004)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... >>