Volges v. Resolution Trust Corp.
Volges v. Resolution Trust Corporation
Volges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 515 U.S. 1162 (1995)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 10 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[i]t is impermissible to attempt to prove a defendant’s guilt by pointing ominously to the fact that he has sought the assistance of counsel”)
-
(White, J., concurring, joined by McCormick, P.J., and Miller, Overstreet, and Maloney, JJ.)
-
(the use of a deadly weapon constitutes more than a “mere modicum” of evidence showing intent to kill)
-
(“[o]ne of [Resolution Trust’s] primary functions is to dispose of a failed institution’s assets in a way that ‘maximizes the net present value return from the sale or other disposition’ of assets under its control”)
-
(affirming denial of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion)
-
(admissible to show motive for crime)
Cited by 59 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.