United States v. Sigma Int'l, Inc., D.B.A. Sigma U.S.A., Inc., Charles Sternisha, 244 F.3d 841 (11th Cir. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Sigma Int'l, Inc., D.B.A. Sigma U.S.A., Inc., Charles Sternisha, 244 F.3d 841 (11th Cir. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Fisher (nywd, 2016-12-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fisher
W.D.N.Y. · 2016 · confidence medium
May 22, 2016) (quoting United States v. Sigma Int’l, Inc., 244 F.3d 841, 856 (11th Cir. 2001), rehearing en banc granted and opinion vacated by 287 F.3d 1325 (citations omitted and emphasis in original)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hillman
10th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sigma Int’l, Inc., 244 F.3d 841, 856 (11th Cir.2001) vacated on other grounds by 287 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002) (“So, too, would we dismiss an indictment that was issued by a ‘kangaroo grand jury’ — one whose deliberations were so overborne by a prosecutor or judge that the indictment was, in effect, the prosecutor’s or judge’s handiwork, and not the result of a considered judgment by an independently functioning grand jury.”); United States v. McKenzie, 678 F.2d 629, 631 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[W]e will dismiss an indictment only when prosecutorial misconduct…
discussed Cited "see" Michael T. Byrne v. Camran Nezhat, M.D.
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sigma Intern., Inc., 244 F.3d 841, 852 (11th Cir.2001) (In determining whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether it “applie[d] the wrong legal standard or ma[de] findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”) (internal citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Michael T. Byrne v. Camran Nezhat, M.D.
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sigma Intern., Inc., 244 F.3d 841, 852 (11th Cir. 2001) (In determining whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether it “applie[d] the wrong legal standard or ma[de] findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”) (internal citations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Sigma International, Inc., D.B.A. Sigma U.S.A., Inc., Charles Sternisha
97-2618.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 8, 2002.
244 F.3d 841
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

244 F.3d 841 (11th Cir. 2001)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SIGMA INTERNATIONAL, INC., d.b.a. Sigma U.S.A., Inc., Charles Sternisha, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 97-2618.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

March 15, 2001.
March 27, 2001

NOTE: THE COURT HAS VACATED THIS OPINION. SEE OPINION OF APRIL 8, 2002.