John E. Coonley, as Tr. of the James E. Coonley II Trust Abcm Corp. v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 128 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
John E. Coonley, as Tr. of the James E. Coonley II Trust Abcm Corp. v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 128 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“this court has set forth factors from which an intent to distribute a controlled substance may be inferred. most significant is the presence of a firearm.”
20 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Robert McClellon (ca8, 2009-08-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Robert McClellon
8th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this court has set forth factors from which an intent to distribute a controlled substance may be inferred. most significant is the presence of a firearm.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robbie Fetters
8th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Id. at 854-55 ; United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Finch
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967, 981 (8th Cir.1999) (relying in part on the presence of a scale as probative of intent to distribute); cf. United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997) (“This Court has set forth factors from which an intent to distribute a controlled substance may be inferred.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Phillip Haney
8th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
We will reverse a conviction only if a “reasonable fact-finder must have entertained a reasonable doubt about the government’s proof of one of the offense’s essential elements.” United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoted case omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Don D. Howard
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997) (allowing inference of intent to distribute from presence of firearm); United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 , 1153 (8th Cir.1996) (allowing inference of intent to distribute from “presence of cash, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and other evidence of drug-dealing”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Don D. Howard
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 1997) (allowing inference of intent to distribute from presence of firearm); United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 , 1153 (8th Cir. 1996) (allowing inference of intent to distribute from "presence of cash, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and other evidence of drug- dealing").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paris Battles, Also Known as Bouvier P. Battles, Also Known as Bouvier Battles, Also Known as Paris B. Battles
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In reviewing the denial of a motion for acquittal, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and affirm unless a reasonable juror “must have entertained a reasonable doubt about the government’s proof of one of the offense’s essential elements.’’ See United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paris Battles
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In reviewing the denial of a motion for acquittal, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and affirm unless a reasonable juror “must have entertained a reasonable doubt about the government&s proof of one of the offense&s essential elements.” See United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Donnell Barrow (2×)
8th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 1997).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Donnell Barrow, Also Known as Darnell Barrow, Also Known as Donnell Burrow (2×)
8th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. McClellon
8th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“For example, we have held that the drugs’ purity level, or the presence of cash, drug paraphernalia, firearms,- and other evidence of drug-dealing, are all factors that can support an inference of intent to distribute.” Id.; see also United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1997) (“This Court has set forth factors from which an intent to distribute a controlled substance may be inferred.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co.
Utah · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
"In deference to the abilities of sophisticated businessmen to provide contractual remedies in their business dealings, ... [a] contractor's claims against the architect must fail under the economic loss doctrine."); see also Cooper Power Sys., Inc. v. Union Carbide Chem. & Plastics Co., 128 F.3d 675 (7th Cir.1997); S.A.I, Inc. v. Gen.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John E. Coonley, as Trustee of the James E. Coonley II Trust Abcm Corporation
v.
Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
97-1446.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 30, 1997.
128 F.3d 675
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

128 F.3d 675

John E. COONLEY, As Trustee of the James E. Coonley II
Trust; ABCM Corporation, Appellants,
v.
FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 97-1446NI.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 22, 1997.
Decided Oct. 30, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa; H. Mark W. Bennett, Judge.

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

John E. Coonley, as Trustee of the James E. Coonley II Trust, and ABCM Corporation appeal an adverse grant of summary judgment on their claim that James E. Coonley II was an insured employee under a group life insurance policy governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. See Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 956 F.Supp. 841 (N.D.Iowa 1997). Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. The district court has written a comprehensive opinion addressing the issues raised by the parties, and we have nothing to add to the district court's analysis. We see no error by the district court and affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.