United States v. Charles Phillip Elliott, William Melhorn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant compensated himself by spending investors’ funds for his own expenses
• applying the selective inclusion presumption where the two provisions had been enacted 20 years apart
• “A person [is] ‘in the business’ of providing advice if the person ... on anything other than rare, isolated and nonperiodic instances, provides specific investment advice”
• “[I]f a person receives an economic benefit from a business that 7 includes the giving of investment advice, that person falls within the initial, 8 broad definition of ‘investment adviser’”
• “[I]f a person receives an economic benefit from a business that includes 3 the giving of investment advice, that person falls within the initial, broad definition of ‘investment 4 adviser’”
• “[Defendant] compensated himself by commingling investor funds with personal funds.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).