United States v. Michael Piervinanzi, Daniel Tichio, John M. Bookhart, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trial judge’s “isolated statement is an insufficient basis from which to conclude that he employed an incorrect standard”
• holding that “[the district court’s] isolated statement is an insufficient basis from which to conclude [it] employed an incorrect [legal] standard”
• finding that the Appellants “clearly intended” to avoid having Marcia and Elizabeth understand the options upon termination and “[t]he evidence show[ed] that Carolyn at every turn sought to deplete Marcia’s benefits”
• noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule 24 that the burden on removal rests with the removing defendant”
• district court “clearly inquired into the element of causation and found it to be missing” on the basis of expert psychological reports and other evidence
• \[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).