Goldstandt v. Bear, Stearns & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to hold that \standing alone\ instruction could never be required; not required when defendants did not rely solely on character evidence for their defense
• examining whether a jury charge in a criminal antitrust case “require[d] a sufficient involvement by each defendant”
• declining to hold that “standing alone” instruction could never be required; not required when defendants did not rely solely on character evidence for their defense
• examining whether a jury charge in a criminal antitrust case “require[d] a sufficient involvement by each defendant”
• \[T]here are undoubtedly due process restrictions on the legislature’s power to define certain conduct as criminal absent particular scienter requirements.\
• “[P]artial non-performance . . . does not preclude a finding that [the alleged conspirator] joined the conspiracy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).