In Re Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that depositing a check in a bank account satisfied the requirements of § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) because the defendant could not make use of the funds without depositing the check
• holding that a court on appeal cannot affirm a conviction on a legal or factual ground never submitted to the jury
• holding that an appellate court may not affirm conviction on a new theory not presented to the jury
• concluding that quid pro quo requirement in Hobbs Act prosecutions, that the extorted payments be made in return for a promise to perform (or not to perform
• holding that elected official can commit Hobbs Act extortion for receiving campaign contributions if payments are made “in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act”
• holding that elected official can commit Hobbs Act extortion for receiving campaign contributions if payments are made \in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).