green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.4 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 4 distinct cases ·
"Technical noncompliance with Rule 50(b) may be excused in situations in which the purposes of the rule are satisfied."
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gary Kusens, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pascal Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants
technical noncompliance with rule 50(b) may be excused in situations in which the purposes of the rule are satisfied.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kusens v. Pascal Company
technical noncompliance with rule 50(b) may be excused in situations in which the purposes of the rule are satisfied.
discussed
Cited "see"
Concepcion v. United States
See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 564-565 (2d Cir.) (finding that the defendant was properly convicted under Section 924(c) because he “specifically encouraged” his co-conspirators to carry guns during the robberies), cer t. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d 40, 45 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that a defendant must “directly facilitate or encourage the use or carrying of a firearm” in order to be convicted under Section 924(c)); United States v. Cambrelen, 18 F.Supp.2d 226, 230-231 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (finding that the defendan…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuel O. White, Luis Noel Cruz, AKA Danny Cruz
See United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr.
“Under 18 U.S.C. § 2 , a defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting a given crime where the government proves that the underlying crime was committed by a person other than the defendant, that the defendant knew of the crime, and that the defendant acted with the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime.” United States v. Hamilton, 334 F.3d at 180 ; see, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 23 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Michael Hamilton and Nicola Messere, Also Known as Supercop
See, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 23 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Wiley, 846 F.2d 150, 154 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Best
See, e.g., United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 , 117 S.Ct. 183 , 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Di Stefano, 555 F.2d 1094, 1103 (2d Cir.1977); United States v. Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760, 763 (2d Cir.1970); see also Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 620 , 69 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949) (aiding,and abetting theory supports liability when the defendant “consciously shares in” the underlying criminal act).
Scottish Heritable Trust, PLC
v.
Peat Marwick Main & Co.
v.
Peat Marwick Main & Co.
No. 96-153.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (2)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.