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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 12 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. Stephen Becker A/k/a/ \Steven Fox\" A/k/a/ \"Dr. Fox\". Appeal of Stephen Becker".
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Stephen Becker A/k/a/ \Steven Fox\" A/k/a/ \"Dr. Fox\". Appeal of Stephen Becker" Anchor | green | “the critical determination is whether one agreement existed.” | 5 |
| 2 | United States v. J. David Smith, David Smith | green | “different conspiracies may warrant emphasizing different factors.” | 5 |
| 3 | United States v. Stephen Becker A/k/a/ \Steven Fox\" A/k/a/ \"Dr. Fox\". Appeal of Stephen Becker" | green | “splitting one conspiracy into several prosecutions.” | 2 |
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.