United States ex rel. Volk v. Day

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the specification of dates, individuals, and the [particular] corporation, along with a reasonably precise delineation of the type of records sought, satisfied the specificity requirement”
• concluding that “the specification of dates, individuals, and the [particular] corporation, along with a reasonably precise delineation of the type of records sought, satisfied the specificity requirement”
• holding that no prosecutorial misconduct is committed where the “terms and phrases” the government uses in closing are “reasonably descriptive” of the evidence adduced at trial
• holding that a prosecutor’s use of the words “lie,” “lies,” or “lied” over 90 times when referring to the defendants in its closing argument was “within the boundaries of proper . . . summations.”
• delineating that officers conducting a search are permitted to peruse documents to determine if they fall within scope of warrant, but may not minutely scrutinize then- contents
• delineating that officers conducting a search are permitted to peruse documents to determine if they fall within scope of warrant, but may not minutely scrutinize their contents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).