United States v. Jeffrey Szur, Elaine Szur, Cary Weinstein, Vadim Kaplun, David M. Gold, Ronald D. Gray, Bertram Slutsky

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a remand is required where the jury may have convicted on a legally invalid theory
• holding that some information “borders on insignificant minutia, the omission of which could never be actionable for fraud” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that some information “borders on insignificant minutia, the omission of which could never be actionable for fraud” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that a defendant’s right to present a defense through particular evidence of his choosing “must be balanced against a court’s leave to set reasonable limits on the admission of evidence
• explaining that “the funds comprised ‘proceeds’ at the moment they were in control of the perpetrators, and that moment occurred as soon as [one perpetrator] received them” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• affirming finding that brokers had duty to disclose payments from company whose stock brokers sold to customers, despite brokers’ lack of discretionary authority over then-customers’ accounts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).