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 51 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. M/g Transport Services, Inc., J. Harschel Thomassee, Fred E. Morehead, and Robert S. Montgomery.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. M/g Transport Services, Inc., J. Harschel Thomassee, Fred E. Morehead, and Robert S. Montgomery Anchor | green | “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and after giving the government the benefit of all inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the testimony, any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 14 |
| 2 | United States v. ANTHONY GIBBS | green | “(1) an agreement to violate drug laws, (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy, and (3) participation in the conspiracy.” | 13 |
| 3 | United States v. M/g Transport Services, Inc., J. Harschel Thomassee, Fred E. Morehead, and Robert S. Montgomery | green | “weigh the evidence presented, consider the credibility of witnesses, or substitute its judgment for that of the jury.” | 6 |
| 4 | United States v. David E. Henley, Jr. | green | “proof of a formal agreement is not required to establish a conspiracy; 'a tacit or material understanding among the parties' is sufficient.” | 6 |
| 5 | United States v. ANTHONY GIBBS | green | “the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, '(1) an agreement to violate drug laws, (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy, and (3) participation in the conspiracy.” | 5 |
| 6 | United States v. Paul Corrado Jack W. Tocco Vito W. Giacalone Nove Tocco Anthony J. Corrado | green | “(1) the defendant was enabled to commit the offense solely by virtue of his position in the enterprise; or (2) the offense was related to the activities of the enterprise.” | 4 |
| 7 | United States v. John E. Scales | green | “has discretion to submit the indictment to the jury in a criminal case as long as limiting instructions are given to the effect that the indictment is not to be considered as evidence of the guilt of the accused.” | 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.