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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 16 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. Waknine.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Waknine Anchor | green | “victim affidavits will generally provide sufficient, reliable evidence to support a restitution order.” | 6 |
| 2 | United States v. Bussell | green | “actual loss for restitution purposes is determined by comparing what actually happened with what would have happened if the defendant had acted lawfully.” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. William Douglas Lomow | green | “we review a district court's valuation methodology de novo.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen | green | “an error is plain when it is 'clear' or 'obvious' under the law.” | 3 |
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.