United States v. Maack

How courts have described this case

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

• applying enhancement because “[a]s there are no other participants, no one besides [defendant] can be attributed with the money,” and defendant was president of the company in which he owned a controlling seventy-five percent interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States v. Daniel I. Colton, United States of America v. Daniel I. Colton
  Fourth Circuit· 2000-11-03· cited 133×
• United States v. Long
  District of Columbia· 2001-12-04· cited 2×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
  Supreme Court· 1999-03-23· cited 8,651×
• Koon v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1996-06-13· cited 3,761×
• United States v. John G. Bennett, Jr.
  Third Circuit· 1998-11-16· cited 131×
• United States v. Carlyle Eustace Wong, A/K/A Carlyle Wong
  Third Circuit· 1993-07-30· cited 88×
• United States v. Robert Allen Edwards A/K/A Fidel Salim A/K/A James F. Winter, III A/K/A Charles King A/K/A Donald W. Coleman, Robert Allen Edwards
  Third Circuit· 1998-11-27· cited 64×
• United States v. Kenneth McBroom
  Third Circuit· 1997-08-28· cited 55×
• United States v. Francis X. Vitale
  Third Circuit· 1998-11-06· cited 42×
• United States v. Kohli
  Ninth Circuit· 1997-04-14· cited 24×
• United States v. Christopher J. Stolee
  Eighth Circuit· 1999-04-16· cited 11×
• UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven NESENBLATT, Defendant-Appellant
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-03-29· cited 7×

Other cases named United States v. Maack

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• United States v. Maack
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1998-10-22