Mutual of Omaha Insurance v. Ruff ex rel. Estate of Burdick

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that defendant should have been more diligent in attempting to obtain a letter -- offered after conviction as the basis of a Rule 33 motion -- the existence of which he had been aware at trial
• applying the concurrent-sentence doctrine because “no purpose would be served in reviewing the legality of the duplicative sentences”
• motions for a new trial “should be granted only with great caution ”
• the government had shown that defendant \Gaetano Carcone\ was the \Thomas -8- Carcone\ indicted by showing that the grand jury had intended to indict the person who had the defendant's phone number and address
• “[TJhis was not a case in which shocking or inflam matory evidence came in against co-defendants, but rather one in which the crimes of the various appellants were not markedly different.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).