American Automotive Accessories, Incorporated and Emalfarb Investment Corporation v. Alan Fishman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant need only reason- ably foresee the use of a wire
• stating that the factors to consider in determining whether corroborating circum- stances exist “include” the factors identified in Nagib
• distinguishing challenges under Rule 804(b)(3) from challenges under the Confrontation Clause
• distinguishing challenges under Rule 804(b)(3) from challenges under the Confrontation Clause
• “Appellants need not show that Fish-man himself utilized the mail or wire services, but only that he caused the mail or wire services to be used by acting with the knowledge that their use would ‘follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use [could] reasonably be foreseen.’ ”
• “Appellants need not show that Fishman himself utilized the mail or wire services, but only that he caused the mail or wire services to be used by acting with the knowledge that their use would ‘follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use [could] reasonably be foreseen.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).