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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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. Gilbert Espinoza-Seanez, Ernesto Espinoza-Seanez and Raul Lazarin-Becerra.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Gilbert Espinoza-Seanez, Ernesto Espinoza-Seanez and Raul Lazarin-Becerra Anchor | green | “outstanding reasonable hypothesis rule” | 3 |
| 2 | United States v. Troy W. Vaden | green | “the crime of aiding and abetting occurs when the defendant associates with a criminal venture, purposefully participates in it, and seeks by his actions to make it succeed.” | 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.