United States v. Stanford Robert Poll

How courts have described this case

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

• “These actions raise two questions: Viz. whether the foregoing definition of ‘willfully’ is correct and whether the evidence offered to rebut the presence of willfulness was irrelevant and inadmissible.”
• “These actions raise two questions: Viz. whether the foregoing definition of ‘willfully’ is correct and whether the evidence offered to rebut the presence of willfulness was irrelevant and inadmissible.”
• “We believe, and so hold, that the defendant’s offer of proof regarding the liquid resources of the corporation and his intention to make up the deficiencies later was relevant and admissible in his effort to refute the willfulness of the failure to pay over.”
• “We believe, and so hold, that the defendant’s offer of proof regarding the liquid resources of the corporation and his intention to make up the deficiencies later was relevant and admissible in his effort to refute the willfulness of the failure to pay over.”
• “We believe, and so hold, that the defendant’s offer of proof regarding the liquid resources of the corporation and his intention to make up the deficiencies later was relevant and admissible in his effort to refute the willfulness of the failure to pay over.”
• “We believe, and so hold, that the defendant’s offer of proof regarding the liquid resources of the corporation and his intention to make up the deficiencies later was relevant and admissible in his effort to refute the willfulness of the failure to pay over.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).