United States v. Thomas James Hively, Also Known as T.J. Hively, United States of America v. Wesley John Ketz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “law of the case” doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders
• finding open-ended continuity in part because defendant was still improperly receiving grant money “[a]t the time the search warrant was executed”
• “The doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders, however, for they can always be reconsidered and modified by a district court prior to entry of a final judgment.”
• “While [the court] could have instructed the jury to start its deliberations anew after seating an alternate, the court was concerned that thirteen jurors could potentially be involved in deciding issues and that this would undermine the validity of any verdict.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).