UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAERDAL MANUFACTURING CORP.; And John L. Karpowicz, Defendants-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a cognizable danger of recurrence when defendant introduced reforms \under protest\ and because \past illegal conduct gives rise to an inference that future violations may occur\
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a cognizable 28 danger of recurrence when defendant introduced reforms “under protest” and because “past illegal conduct gives rise to an inference that future violations may occur”
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a cognizable 28 danger of recurrence when defendant introduced reforms “under protest” and because “past illegal conduct gives rise to an inference that future violations may occur”
• where defendant had violated regulations and introduced reforms under protest, its \past illegal conduct [gave] rise to an inference that future violations may occur\
• courts may consider “the degree of scienter involved” in determining whether there is a 4 “cognizable danger of recurrent violations” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).