United States of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Robert E. Spencer, Robert A. Bloomer, Jr., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that new evidence merely discrediting government witness, but not contradicting government case, ordinarily does not warrant new trial
• holding that, when interpreting an agency’s regulation, “we . . . begin with the text of the regulation and go no further unless an ambiguity in the language so requires”
• noting that “[t]he discovery of new evidence which merely discredits a government witness and does not directly contradict the government’s case ordinarily does not justify the grant of a new trial.”
• noting that \[t]he discovery of new evidence which merely discredits a government witness and does not directly contradict the government's case ordinarily does not justify the grant of a new trial.\
• stating that newly discovered evidence does not mandate a new trial unless the evidence “probably” would lead to an acquittal
• “[A] reasonable accommodation can never involve the elimination of an essential function of a job.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).