United States v. Coyne

How courts have described this case

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

• finding corporate officer “assigned” corporation's assets to himself to avoid payment of corporate debt to the United States
• noting the Statute “encompasses any corporate officer who acts to prefer any creditor of an insolvent corporation over the claims of the United States”
• corporate officer “assigned” corporation’s assets to himself to avoid payment of corporate debt to the United States

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mickelson v. Barnet
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1984-01-19· cited 37×
• United States v. Coppola
  Second Circuit· 1996-06-10· cited 34×
• United States v. Golden Acres, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1988-04-15· cited 29×
• Conner v. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue Associates, L.P.
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1995-12-28· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Price v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1926-01-11· cited 176×
• UNITED STATES v. MOORE Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1975-12-02· cited 64×
• United States v. 58th Street Plaza Theatre, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1968-05-31· cited 43×
• Lakeshore Apartments, Inc. v. United States of America, Elazar Behar Et Ux. v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1965-09-29· cited 25×
• United States v. Gottheiner (In Re Gottheiner)
  N.D. California· 1980-02-06· cited 12×
• Tauber v. Noble
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1961-06-28· cited 2×

Other cases named United States v. Coyne

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• United States v. Coyne
  D. Massachusetts· 1992-09-25· cited 4×
• United States v. Coyne
  D. Vermont· 2018-04-10· cited 2×
• United States v. Coyne
  First Circuit· 2004-11-03· cited 2×
• United States v. Coyne
  W.D. New York· 1977-01-14· cited 1×
• United States v. Coyne
  First Circuit· 2004-11-04
• United States v. Coyne
  First Circuit· 2005-08-24