YU YAN CHAN v. WILLIAM KEVIN ADDISON

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the presumption applies and holding that \person\ does not include a federal agency as a potential victim in the Major Crimes Act
• finding that the federal government is not a “person” within the meaning of the Indian Major Crimes Act
• observing 11562 UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL that the federal government could have charged Indian defen- dant who burglarized Bureau of Indian Affairs facilitates located in Indian country with 18 U.S.C. § 641, theft of gov- ernment property
• “[T]he government could have charged Errol D. under [the ICCA], which, by extending the [ACA] to Indian territory, would have rendered him criminally liable for a ‘like offense’ and a ‘like punishment’ under state law.”
• alleging victim to be the Montana Department of Family Services

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).