12 Cited authorities

U.S. v. Pitre
960 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 314 times
Holding defendant liable for § 841 drug conspiracy where jury could infer that he "was aware that he was transporting money to be used to purchase narcotics" and "acted intentionally and knowingly as a driver in furtherance of the charged narcotics conspiracy"
S.E.C. v. Dibella
587 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 116 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because a “ ‘violation’ of the Advisers Act” includes the aiding and abetting of principal violations of the Advisers Act, “the civil penalty provision encompasses both primary and secondary violators of the Advisers Act”
Wall Data v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dept
447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 106 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wall Data was the prevailing party even though it recovered less than it originally sought
U.S. v. Pepin
514 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 59 times
Holding that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 when it excluded evidence of postmortem dismemberment probative of defendant's state of mind
George v. Celotex Corp.
914 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 87 times
Determining that asbestos report was relevant to defendant's liability because of defendant's duty to know and because of defendant's use of precise value criticized by report
Allen v. City of New York
466 F. Supp. 2d 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 14 times
Allowing expert to testify that defendants acted "deliberately" as a factual conclusion embracing the ultimate issue of intent
Epstein v. Kalvin-Miller International, Inc.
121 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cited 7 times
Permitting proposal of a limiting instruction relating to a piece of evidence whose probative value the court concluded was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403
Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc.
Case No. 6:06-CV-1703-Orl-19JGG (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007)
Case No. 6:06-CV-1703-Orl-19JGG. April 23, 2007 ORDER JAMES GLAZEBROOK, Magistrate Judge This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion: MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 34) FILED: February 27, 2007 THEREON ORDERED GRANTED DENIED _______________________________________________ it is that the motion is in part and in part. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff seeks specific performance of a contract, or in the alternative, damages for Defendant's alleged
Huhammad v. Stewart
05-CV-3121 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2006)
05-CV-3121. August 23, 2006 Order HAROLD BAKER, District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Hulick's summary judgment motion (30), the plaintiff's motion to compel (d/e 41) and the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (d/e 44). Plaintiff's Allegations The plaintiff's right eye is missing. To prevent his empty eye socket from developing an infection, he must administer saline to the socket several times per day. On November 20, 2003, the plaintiff was placed in segregation at Hill Correctional Center
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,763 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,508 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 8,864 times 81 Legal Analyses
Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

SCF Arizona v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

12 Cited authorities

Holding defendant liable for § 841 drug conspiracy where jury could infer that he "was aware that he was transporting money to be used to purchase narcotics" and "acted intentionally and knowingly as a driver in furtherance of the charged narcotics conspiracy"

Holding that because a “ ‘violation’ of the Advisers Act” includes the aiding and abetting of principal violations of the Advisers Act, “the civil penalty provision encompasses both primary and secondary violators of the Advisers Act”

Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wall Data was the prevailing party even though it recovered less than it originally sought

Holding that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 when it excluded evidence of postmortem dismemberment probative of defendant's state of mind

Determining that asbestos report was relevant to defendant's liability because of defendant's duty to know and because of defendant's use of precise value criticized by report

Allowing expert to testify that defendants acted "deliberately" as a factual conclusion embracing the ultimate issue of intent

Permitting proposal of a limiting instruction relating to a piece of evidence whose probative value the court concluded was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct