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 3 cases, quoted by 9 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. Shugart.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Shugart Anchor | green | “contemplates a restitution order based on replacement cost where actual cash value is unavailable or unreliable.” | 3 |
| 2 | Government of the Virgin Islands v. Robert Dowling | green | “if the sentencing guidelines must be used in one court but not in the other, the prosecutor would have the option of choosing what range of punishment could be imposed for the particular crime” | 3 |
| 3 | UNITED STATES of America v. Dolores STEPHENS, Appellant | green | “the scope of what a trial court may consider in determining an appropriate criminal sentence is breathtakingly broad.” | 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.