Skip to main content
· 6/24/1985

Tom Hudson & Associates, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista

Citations

  • 472 U.S. 1028
  • 105 S. Ct. 3503
  • 87 L. Ed. 2d 634
  • 53 U.S.L.W. 3895
  • 1985 U.S. LEXIS 2302

How courts have described this case

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

  • “where the witness appears to be equally available or unavailable to both sides, we think it is well within the district court’s discretion to refuse to allow such argument.”
  • “When an indictment contains all the essential elements of the charged offense, the accused may obtain the factual proof supporting the charge, if vital to his defense, by a motion for a bill of particulars. ”
  • “It requires no extended discussion of authority to demonstrate that omissions or concealment or material information can constitute fraud cognizable under the mail fraud statute, without proof of a duty to disclose the information pursuant to a specific statute or regulation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.