green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[the victim] did not waive either a direct or subrogation right to receive VWPA restitution when it settled [the] claim of loss.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Uri Sheinbaum, United States of America v. Marc A. Birnbaum
But see United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 853-54 (9th Cir.) (rejecting the Bruchey holding), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Sheinbaum
But see United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 853-54 (9th Cir.) (rejecting the Bruchey holding), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Hamburger
did not waive either a direct or subrogation right to receive vwpa restitution when it settled claim of loss.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hornback v. United States
exhaustion is required herein because plaintiff may vindicate his rights at the administrative level, thus making court intervention unnecessary.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Joseph LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
intent to defraud" means "to act willfully, and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to oneself.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Bruce J. Rice, and Rice Aircraft, Inc., United States of America v. Bruce Rice
othing in the text or legislative history of the vwpa indicated that congress intended the sentencing hearing to be transformed into a second trial on the issue of restitution. if anything, congressional intent appears to have been quite the contrary.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas Edward Karam
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 854 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); United States v. Sheinbaum, 136 F.3d 443, 447-48 (5th Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dean
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 854-55, n. 11 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989). 1 In United States v. Feldman, 853 F.2d 648 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1164 , 103 L.Ed.2d 222 (1989), the court applied the Eighth Amendment to a defendant’s claim that his overall sentence, which included an order of restitution, was excessive.
cited
Cited "see"
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9376, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,355 United States of America v. Anthony C. Sarno and Charles W. Knapp, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Joseph v. Nash
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 852 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sarno
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 852 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 42,940 United States of America v. Wendy Miller Desalvo
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 857 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.
To show a Rule 10b-5 violation, a private plaintiff must prove a “causal connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and [the] plaintiff’s injury.” Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 243 , 108 S.Ct. 978, 979 , 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988); accord Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 650 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); see also SEC v. Clark, 915 F.2d 439, 449 (9th Cir.1990). 7 The private plaintiff must also prove a proximate relationship between the plaintiff’s injury and the purchase or sale of…
discussed
Cited "see"
Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.
To show a Rule 10b-5 violation, a private plaintiff must prove a "causal connection between a defendant's misrepresentation and [the] plaintiff's injury." Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 243 , 108 S.Ct. 978, 979 , 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988); accord Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 650 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); see also SEC v. Clark, 915 F.2d 439, 449 (9th Cir.1990). 7 The private plaintiff must also prove a proximate relationship between the plaintiff's injury and the purchase or sale of a securit…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Albert Augusto Riascos
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 852 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arthur Young & Co. v. Bob Reves Robert H. Gibbs & Frances Graham, Thomas E. Robertson, Jr., as Trustee of the Farmer's Co-Op of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Inc., and as Representative of a Class of Members, Depositors, and Equity Security Holders, Who Are Similarly Situated to Him Bob Reves Frances Graham Robert H. Gibbs, Individually Robert H. Gibbs, as Natural Guardian of His Minor Children, Thomas A. Gibbs and Robert H. Gibbs, Jr. And Robert H. Gibbs, as Trustee of the Muskogee Internal Medicine Group Profit Sharing Funds v. Arthur Young & Co., Thomas E. Robertson, Jr., as Trustee of the Farmer's Co-Op of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Inc., and as Representative of a Class of Members, Depositors, and Equity Security Holders, Who Are Similarly Situated to Him v. Arthur Young & Co., Thomas E. Robertson, Jr., Etc. v. Jack White Thomas E. Robertson, Jr., as Trustee of the Farmer's Co-Op of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Inc., and as Representative of a Class of Members, Depositors, and Equity Security Holders, Who Are Similarly Situated to Him Bob Reves Frances Graham Robert H. Gibbs, Individually Robert H. Gibbs, as Natural Guardian of His Minor Children, Thomas A. Gibbs and Robert H. Gibbs, Jr. And Robert H. Gibbs, as Trustee of the Muskogee Internal Medicine Group Profit Sharing Funds v. Arthur Young & Co., Thomas E. Robertson, Jr., Etc. v. Jack White Robert R. Cloar, Class Counsel v. Bob Reves
See Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 653 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); Jett v. Sunderman, 840 F.2d 1487, 1493 (9th Cir.1988); Windon Third Oil & Gas Drilling Partnership v. Federal Deposit Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Daniel KLAERS, Robert Andersen, Appellants, v. Peter ST. PETER, Appellee
See Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 650-652 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves
See Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 653 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989);.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur Grundhoefer, Leonard Hausman, Richard E. O'connell, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Hausman Computer Associates, Inc., an Intervening Party, Richard E. O'connell, Claimant-Appellant v. Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation
See id. at 910. 21 In United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 855 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989), it was held that the Act permitted restitution to an insurance company--which suffered economic injury by compensating the direct victim, a bank--notwithstanding that the bank had settled all claims against the defendant and the insurance company had executed an agreement with the bank waiving its subrogation rights against the defendant.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Crystal Mason, Edward Young
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846 , 852 n. 6 (9th Cir.) (noting an essential element under section 1344 is a specific intent to commit bank fraud), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989). 6 Compare Schreiber Distrib.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. R. Randall Walker, United States of America v. Trula A. Walker
See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 855 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); United States v. Mischler, 787 F.2d 240, 244-47 (7th Cir.1986); Unit *307 ed States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 924 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.
See id. at 1517-18 (finding that the record evidence supported an inference of a conspiracy in multiple ways and was sufficient to preclude summary judgment); Alfas, 745 F.Supp. at 1521 ; see also Roberts v. Heim, 670 F.Supp. 1466, 1484-85 (N.D.Cal.1987) (specific facts must be alleged from which an understanding or agreement may be inferred), rev’d in part on other grounds, Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 650 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Newman v. Comprehensive Care Corp.
See e.g., Roberts v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 857 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002 , 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); In re Fin.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mesa Operating Limited Partnership v. U.S. Department of the Interior
See also, Amoco Production Co. v. Lujan, 877 F.2d 1243, 1248 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989) (agency's interpretation of law must be honored so long as it is a reasonable one). 28 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard Plache James Attarian
See, e.g., United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846 , 852 n. 6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 561 , 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989); United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James N. CONSTANT
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 89-471.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1989.
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Denied.