Kelly v. Omaha Hous. Auth.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court violated separation-of-powers principles by sua sponte invoking its supervisory power to oversee the government's entry into and implementation of a deferred prosecution agreement
• finding that an independent monitor’s report relating to a company’s compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA
• stating that the court’s “role is not to act as superprosecutors, second-guessing the legitimate exercise of core elements of prosecutorial discretion, but rather as neutral arbiters of the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that the court’s “role is not to act as superprosecutors, second-guessing the legitimate exercise of core elements of prosecutorial discretion, but rather as neutral arbiters of the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that the court’s “role is not to act as superprosecutors, second-guessing the legitimate exercise of core elements of prosecutorial discretion, but rather as neutral arbiters of the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• rejecting “the proposition that if a filed document could later become relevant to the judicial function, then it is relevant to the judicial function”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).