green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Douglas C.
See United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236, 239 (2d Cir.) (acknowledging ‘‘general rule’’ that, unless explicitly prohibited by legislature, ‘‘criminal charges may aggregate multiple individual actions that otherwise could be charged as discrete offenses as long as all of the actions are part of ‘a single scheme’ ’’), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S. Ct. 416 , 154 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Douglas C.
See United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir.) (acknowledging ‘‘general rule’’ that, unless explicitly prohibited by legislature, ‘‘criminal charges may aggregate multiple individual actions that otherwise could be charged as discrete offenses as long as all of the actions are part of ‘a single scheme’ ’’), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S. Ct. 416 , 154 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff)
(B & P Memo at 25-28.) “A ‘Ponzi scheme’ typically describes a pyramid scheme where earlier investors are paid from the investments of more recent investors, rather thandrom any underlying business concern, until the scheme ceases to attract new investors and the pyramid collapses.” Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122 , 132 n. 7 (2d Cir.2008); accord In re BLMIS, 654 F.3d 229, 232 (2d Cir.2011) (“Net Equity Decision”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 25 , 183 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012); see United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir.) (“A Ponzi scheme by definition uses the pu…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hernandez v. Thaler
See Broxton v. Cockrell, 278 F.3d 456, 458 (5th Cir.) (holding failure to raise a merit-less point of error did not cause performance of appellate counsel to fall below an objective level of reasonableness), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Flores
App. 2d 125, 129 , 942 P.3d 646 (1997), aff'd 264 Kan. 4 , 954 P.2d 1088 (1998); see also Easterwood v. State, 273 Kan. 361 , Syl., 44 P.3d 1209 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 951 (2002) (holding that defendant, who had opportunity to challenge felony-murder charge but knowingly waived that right and pled guilty to felony murder and other charges, was bound by plea agreement and was not entitled to collaterally attack his convictions); McPherson v. State, 38 Kan.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Taylor
See also, State v. Bowie, 00-3344 (La.4/3/02), 813 So.2d 377, 391 , cert. denied, Bowie v. Louisiana, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: New Times Securities Services, Inc. And New Age Financial Services, Inc., Debtors. Myrna K. Jacobs, Simon and Helga Noveck, Miriam Seidenberg, Felice Linder, Angelo Scarlata, the Rose Marie Ceparano Irrevocable Trust, the Estate of Allan A. Blynd, Salvatore and Stella Digiorgio, Project Earth Environmental Fundraisers, Inc., New York Optical, Inc., the Carl Carter Irrevocable Trust, Craig Roffman, Ellen Eschen, and Jill Gundry, Claimants-Appellees
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1180 (7th ed.1999) (explaining that, in a Ponzi scheme, "[m]oney from the new investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to old investors, usually without any operation or revenue-producing activity other than the continual raising of new funds"); see also United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002). 3 Formed pursuant to SIPA, SIPC is a "nonprofit, private membership corporation to which most registered brokers and dealers are required to belong." Sec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re New Times Securities Services, Inc.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1180 (7th ed.1999) (explaining that, in a Ponzi scheme, "[mjoney from the new investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to old investors, usually without any operation or revenue-producing activily other than the continual raising of new funds”); see also United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 951 , 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Easterwood
v.
Kansas
v.
Kansas
02-5460.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 2002.
Published
EASTERWOOD
v.
KANSAS.
No. 02-5460.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 15, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
2
Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 273 Kan. 361, 44 P. 3d 1209.