State ex rel. Landers v. Indus. Comm.

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 erred when it treated the entire contract price as loss when victims “got what they paid for”
• finding that losses suffered by “willing participants in the fraudulent scheme” are not countable in calculating the loss amount under the Guidelines
• observing that applying the credits-against-loss rule when determining the actual loss for Section' 8(a
• noting that the government- benefits rule “obviate[s] the general rule”
• “Our sister circuits are split on whether the government benefits rule applies to procurement frauds involving contracts awarded under affirmative action programs.”
• “To the extent that the evidence could have supported a finding of either good faith or intent to defraud, we are not free to second-guess the jury’s choice of one view of the evidence over another.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).