Beagle v. City of Buffalo

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 § 924(c) defendant “could be found vicariously liable for his co-conspirators’ actions under Pinkerton” coconspirator liability
• holding that a § 924(c) defendant “could be found vicariously liable for his co-conspirators’ actions under Pinkerton” coconspirator liability
• holding that a § 924(c) defendant “could be found vicariously liable for his co-conspirators’ actions under Pinkerton” coconspirator liability
• concluding based on the text and context of Section 2255 that “only . . . successive applications, and not amendments or even necessarily individual claims, [must] be screened by an appellate panel”
• “Though our pattern instructions are not ‘holy writ,’ they do ‘reflect the collective experience of the judges and lawyers who crafted them and can serve as a helpful starting point.’”
• “Though our pattern instructions are not ‘holy writ,’ they do ‘reflect the collective experience of the judges and lawyers who crafted them and can serve as a helpful starting point.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).