Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 33 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Johnny Rivera, Elena Vila.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Johnny Rivera, Elena Vila Anchor | green | “support the inference that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question and purposely contrived to avoid learning all of the facts in order to have a defense in the event of a subsequent prosecution.” | 8 |
| 2 | United States v. William W. Lilly | green | “whether a jury could plausibly find that the actions described in the disputed counts of the indictment, objectively viewed, constituted separate executions of the bank fraud scheme.” | 5 |
| 3 | United States v. James T. Labat | green | “in arriving at that figure, mr. brandon, i recognize that based on the pre-sentence report, you don't appear to have any assets at the present time but it appears that you have the prospect of receiving or inheriting some assets in the future.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Johnny Rivera, Elena Vila | green | “only when the facts support the inference that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question and purposely contrived to avoid learning all of the facts in order to have a defense in the event of a subsequent prosecution.” | 4 |
| 5 | United States v. Claudia O'campo, United States v. Julian Redeondo | green | “includes conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy that was known to or was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” | 4 |
| 6 | United States v. William W. Lilly | green | “in order to obtain a single loan, the proceeds of which funded a single real estate purchase.” | 4 |
| 7 | United States v. Paul J. Savoie | green | “the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant's dependents, and such other factors as the court deems appropriate.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.