Penna. R. R. v. Rusynik

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 only notice required is of “the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture”
• holding that the defendant had waived venue by failing to request a jury instruction as to venue and further concluding that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury was not plainly erroneous
• stating that a statute of limitations defense is \waived\ where no request for a jury instruction on the issue is made, but also undertaking a \plain-error\ forfeiture analysis
• noting that Terrell reflects the position of a majority of the circuits
• noting that Terrell reflects the position of a majority of the circuits
• interpreting the predecessor to Rule 32.2(a) and noting that “its principle objective is to provide persons ... with notice that forfeiture will be sought”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).