TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert Craig and Peter v

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert CRAIG and Peter v. Pappas, Defendants-Appellants; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank P. NORTH, Jr., and Estate of Jack E. Walker, Defendants-Appellees

United States v. Craig, 919 F.2d 57 (7th Cir. 1990)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 13, 1990
Docket
Nos. 89-1744, 89-1466
Judges
Wood, Posner, Crabb
Citations
919 F.2d 571990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20087

Opinion

ORDER The slip opinion issued in the above-entitled case on July 16, 1990, 907 F.2d 653 , (7th Cir.1990) is hereby amended.

Page 14, 907 F.2d page 660, first complete paragraph, the last sentence starting with the word “Accordingly” should read as follows:

Accordingly, the Walker estate’s petition should be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its previous orders relating to the estate and dismiss the estate’s petition; the judgment of the district court denying a writ of error coram nobis to Robert Craig and Peter V. Pappas is affirmed; and the judgment of the district court granting a writ of error coram nobis to Frank P. North, Jr., is reversed.

Page 14, 907 F.2d page 660 last paragraph, should read as follows: “AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.”

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc filed in the above-entitled cause by defendants-appellants and defendants-ap-pellees on July 30, 1990, no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny a rehearing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1993: 11996: 12000: 12013: 12017: 12021: 12022: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Leonard Ray Blanton v. United States94 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1996)
  2. John A. Betts v. United States10 F.3d 1278 (7th Cir. 1993)
  3. Trujillo v. State310 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2013)
  4. United States v. Larry M. Lilly206 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2000)
  5. United States v. Orvil Hassebrock21 F.4th 494 (7th Cir. 2021)
  6. United States v. VerrusioNo. Criminal No. 2009-0064 (D.D.C. June 19, 2017)

Most recent

  1. Brett Kimberlin v. United StatesNo. 21-1691 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2022)
  2. United States v. Orvil Hassebrock21 F.4th 494 (7th Cir. 2021)
  3. United States v. VerrusioNo. Criminal No. 2009-0064 (D.D.C. June 19, 2017)
  4. Trujillo v. State310 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2013)
  5. United States v. Larry M. Lilly206 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2000)
  6. Leonard Ray Blanton v. United States94 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Craig, 907 F.2d 653 (7th Cir. 1990) 41

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list