United States v. Edward Hanousek, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act are intended to protect the public at large from the dangers of water pollution
• holding under the CWA that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s request to further define the culpable mental state by explaining what it did not include
• “To prove proximate cause, the government must establish that the harm was a foreseeable result of the conduct.”
• operator of backhoe ruptured pipeline; Clean Water Act is public welfare statute and imposes criminal liability for ordinary negligence
• “To prove proximate cause, the government must establish that the harm was a foreseeable result of the conduct.”
• “Congress is 6 In enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3583, Congress replaced “parole” with “super- vised release.” United States v. Kinkade, 379 F.3d 813, 817 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1638 (2005

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).