United States v. Douglas Jarvis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that conspiracy prosecution against Jarvis constituted double jeopardy but, nevertheless, affirming the defendant's remaining convictions on substantive drug offenses
• holding that although defendant was the only co-conspirator charged in both indictments, the court “ha[d] no difficulty in 8 concluding that the persons acting as co-conspirators were in large measure the same” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)
• finding that a subsequent prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause where the conduct alleged in the first 7 indictment \constituted the entirety of agreement\
• “To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily 8 have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies 9 the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.”
• “To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily 8 have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies 9 the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).