United States v. Young Brothers, Inc., Contractors

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two witnesses were unavailable where “[i]t was clear to all participants that each claim would have been made,” and to require the Rule 804 procedures to be fulfilled would be “mere formalism”
• holding that two witnesses were unavailable where “[i]t was clear to all participants that each claim would have been made,” and to require the Rule 804 procedures to be fulfilled would be “mere formalism”
• allowing trial court to amend defendant’s name from “Young Brothers., Inc.” to “Young Brothers, Inc. Contractors”
• \[I]t is clear that a witness who is unavailable because he has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is unavailable under the terms of 804(a)(1)\
• “[I]t is clear that a witness who is unavailable because he has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and was therefore unavailable under the terms of FED. R. EVID. 804(a)(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).