Hilterbrand v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that one panel of our Court may not usually overrule another unless “an intervening Supreme Court decision [has] cast[] doubt on our controlling precedent” (quoting In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156, 168 (2d Cir. 2010)
• observing that “Court may affirm on any basis for which there is sufficient support in the record, including grounds not relied on by the district court” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[N]othing in the legislature’s use of ‘in connection with’ in 28 the [Iowa Consumer Fraud] Act enunciates a bright-line temporal rule. We will not judicially superinscribe one.”
• “[N]othing in the legislature’s use of ‘in connection with’ in 28 the [Iowa Consumer Fraud] Act enunciates a bright-line temporal rule. We will not judicially superinscribe one.”
• “[N]othing in the legislature’s use of ‘in connection with’ in 28 the [Iowa Consumer Fraud] Act enunciates a bright-line temporal rule. We will not judicially superinscribe one.”
• choosing instead to [i]nterpret[ ] 'direct' to require only a reasonably proximate causal nexus”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).