Rural Water Dist. No. 4, Douglas Cnty. v. City of Eudora

How courts have described this case

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

• jurors are per- mitted to infer fraudulent methodologies from evidence of 20 Nos. 18-1687 & 18-1950 similar fraudulent transactions
• jurors are per- mitted to infer fraudulent methodologies from evidence of 20 Nos. 18-1687 & 18-1950 similar fraudulent transactions
• jurors are per- mitted to infer fraudulent methodologies from evidence of 20 Nos. 18-1687 & 18-1950 similar fraudulent transactions
• “The two affidavits defense counsel filed address events . . . four months before the filing. Those allegations were not timely.”
• “There is no [ ] certificate [from counsel of record] here. Counsel filed h[is] own affidavit, which is not sufficient.”
• “[W]here there is an apparently reliable basis for information in a presentence re- port, bare denial is not enough. The defendant must produce some evidence calling the presentence report into question, unless the report contains only a naked or unsupported charge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).