Search for: "Kelley v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 199
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2017, 11:39 am by Christine Corcos
This article considers the interplay between author and nature in United States copyright law, using Kelley v Chicago Park District as a catalyst. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 11:39 am
This article considers the interplay between author and nature in United States copyright law, using Kelley v Chicago Park District as a catalyst. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 4:50 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
Back in 2008, I posted an entry about the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine finding that evidence from the Kelley Blue Book is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(17), which provides an exception to the... [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 5:00 am by zshapiro
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and 180 month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in United States v, Kelley Kelley was convicted after a bench trial in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 3:01 pm
Litton Indus., Inc., 410 Mass. 15, 23 (1991); Columbia State Bank v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 12:01 am
False account statements that stock broker sent to his brokerage clients two to four years after their purchase of valueless securities were relevant as lulling statements to show the defendant's efforts to avoid detection, in United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 12:01 am
False account statements that stock broker sent to his brokerage clients two to four years after their purchase of valueless securities were relevant as lulling statements to show the defendant's efforts to avoid detection, in United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 6:31 am
Although bogus account statements generated to lull defrauded investors are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish a securities fraud violation, because they are not statements made "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security," they are relevant evidence of the defendant's intent to defraud and the extent of the scheme employed, the Second Circuit held yesterday in a short decision in United States v. [read post]