green
Positive treatment
12.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 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.
cited
Cited "see"
Conahan v. State
See Evans v. State, 808 So.2d 92 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002).
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.
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). .
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."
Barone v. State
See also Evans v. State, 808 So.2d 92, 104 (Fla.2001)(court properly limited detective's cross-examination where detective did not testify as to partial statement that required further clarification), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 416 , 154 L.Ed.2d 297 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Broxton
v.
Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
v.
Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
02-5214.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 2002.
Published
BROXTON
v.
COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION.
No. 02-5214.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 15, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 278 F. 3d 456.