United States v. Steven E. Rogers

How courts have described this case

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

• The district court “must review de novo the portions of 10 the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”
• The district court “must review de novo the portions of 10 the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”
• “Equitable recoupment . . . has always been recognized as a 10 defense, not a claim.”
• “[Provided there was sufficient evidence in the case ..., [the defendant] was entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on what a security is and to let the jury decide whether the items at issue were securities.”
• “[P]rovided there was sufficient evidence in the case . . . , [the defendant] was entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on what a security is and to let the jury decide whether the items at issue were securities.”
• “No case has been called to our attention, and we are aware of none, in which an attorney has been disqualified on grounds of conflicting prior representation solely at the behest of a person other than the former client or its privy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).