United States v. Cheryl K. Hao, A.K.A. Kookie Hao, 808 F.2d 36 (8th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Cheryl K. Hao, A.K.A. Kookie Hao, 808 F.2d 36 (8th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sherrill K. Duncan and Dora Mae Duncan v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis (ca7, 1991-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sherrill K. Duncan and Dora Mae Duncan v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis
7th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See In re Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142 , 1153 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926 , 109 S.Ct. 311 , 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988); Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1986); Knodle v. Jeffrey, 189 Ill.App.3d 877 , 137 Ill.Dec. 256, 260 , 545 N.E.2d 1017, 1021 (1989).
cited Cited "see" Busch v. Doyle
D. Utah · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36 (10th Cir.1986).
cited Cited "see" Thomas W. Hill v. Department of the Air Force Paul J. Vallerie, and Paul S. Britt
10th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1986) (construing a similar Utah statute).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chard v. Chard
Utah Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In any event, we make no comment on the merits of Kent’s NIED claim. 20180585-CA 25 2019 UT App 209 Chard v. Chard pendens in cases seeking a money judgment.” Id. ¶ 22 (quotation simplified); see also Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“[U]nder Utah law a notice of lis pendens may not be filed in anticipation of a money judgment.”); Bank of the West v. Whitney, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1080 (D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bank of the W. v. Whitney
D. Utah · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, the parties both acknowledge that "Utah law does not allow the filing of a lis pendens in cases seeking a money judgment." Id. at 1224 ; see also Hamilton v. Smith , 808 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that Utah's statute should be "construed to prohibit the filing of a notice of lis pendens in anticipation of a money judgment.") Plaintiff argues that it already has a money judgment and is not seeking a new one; instead, it "seeks authorization to recover assets-including real property-held by Newell Whitney's alter egos." (Opp'n Memo 5, ECF No. 179.) Specifically, plaintiff's Compl…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Winters v. Schulman
Utah Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Furthermore, “Utah law does not allow for the filing of a lis pendens in cases seeking a money judgment.” Busch v. Doyle, 141 B.R. 432, 436 (Bankr.D.Utah 1992); see also Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1986) (stating section 78-40-2 prohibits filing of lis pendens in anticipation of money judgment).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Cheryl K. HAO, A.K.A. Kookie Hao, Appellant
86-5111.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 17, 1987.
808 F.2d 36
Jack Nordby, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant., Paul Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
McMillian, Bright, Conmy.
Published
CONMY, District Judge.

Cheryl Hao appeals her conviction for mail and wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property. Hao challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against her.

When considering an appeal from a jury conviction, we must view the evidence which was before the jury in the light most favorable to the government, and give the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can logically be drawn. We must overturn the jury’s verdict only if the evidence so viewed is such that a reasonable-minded jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the government’s proof of one of the essential elements of the offense. United States v. Noibi, 780 F.2d 1419, 1421 (8th Cir.1986).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.