United States v. Ingredient Technology Corporation, Formerly Known as Sucrest Corporation, and Robert M. Rapaport

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that it was “immaterial” that there was no prior litigation directly on point
• issue of subjective intent is properly sent to jury so long as there is evidence as to what defendant genuinely thought
• “[S]urely the defendants knew they were committing a wrongful act. The resale component of the agreement was concealed. The auditors were lied to, as were the attorneys. The secret letter sealed with wax was hidden in a safe and then destroyed.”
• characterizing statement in Grunewald as “simply pure oversight”
• clarifying prior holdings that were ʺsimply pure oversightʺ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).