Katz v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 436 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Katz v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 436 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he second circuit rejects the notion that the 'quo' in a quid pro quo must be a narrowly defined official act.”
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ryan v. United States (ilnd, 2010-12-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ryan v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he second circuit rejects the notion that the 'quo' in a quid pro quo must be a narrowly defined official act.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Milovanovic (2×)
9th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Urciuoli, 613 F.3d 11, 17-18 (1st Cir.) (“[NJothing in Skilling’s language or context suggests that the Court was distinguishing between the fiduciary who received the bribe and the non-fiduciary who gave it, a distinction that would conflict with the statute’s language embracing those who participate in ‘any scheme ... to defraud.’ ” (alteration in original) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 1341), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 612 , 178 L.Ed.2d 436 (2010)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Brano Milovanovic
9th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Urciuoli, 613 F.3d 11, 17-18 (1st Cir.) (“[N]othing in Skil- ling’s language or context suggests that the Court was distin- guishing between the fiduciary who received the bribe and the non-fiduciary who gave it, a distinction that would conflict with the statute’s language embracing those who participate in ‘any scheme . . . to defraud.’ ” (alteration in original) (cit- ing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 1341), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 612 (2010)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Zhen Zhou Wu
1st Cir. · 2013 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (retrial barred by Double Jeopardy Clause if evidence supplied by the government would be legally insufficient to sustain conviction), with United States v. Urciuoli, 513 F.3d 290, 297 (1st Cir.2008) (new trial permissible where error is confined to jury instructions), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 612 , 178 L.Ed.2d 436 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harry Meyer Katz
v.
United States
No. 10-493.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 15, 2010.
178 L. Ed. 2d 436
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.