Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. Crank”
Crank v. Bracypublic domain
Petition for rehearing denied.
Crank v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Crank v. Bracypublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Crank v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Katz-Crank v. Haskettpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Wyoming Ex Rel. Crank v. United Statespublic domain
539 F.3d 1236 (2008) State of WYOMING, ex rel. Patrick J. CRANK, Wyoming Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Carl J. Truscott, in his official capacity as Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; David H. Chipman, in his official capacity as Chief, Firearms Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants-Appell
Keene v. Crankpublic domain
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Keene v. Crankpublic domain
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Holley v. Crankpublic domain
HUG, Circuit Judge: In this case we must decide whether owners and officers of corporations may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). We conclude that they can. Although under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee’s action, the criteria for the Fair Housing Act is different as liability is s
Crank v. Texaspublic domain
510 U.S. 975 Crankv.Texas. No. 92-9069. Supreme Court of United States. November 15, 1993. 1 Appeal from the Ct. Crim. App. Tex. 2 Certiorari denied.
Crank v. Tollepublic domain
Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.
Crank v. Tollepublic domain
Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.
Crank v. Duckworthpublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Duckworth v. Crankpublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Crankpublic domain
COSGRAVE, District Judge. The accused in this ease is one of several charged in an indictment containing six counts which generally charge unlawful importation of liquor; the unlawfulness consisting of violation of the revenue laws. He was convicted on the fourth count alone. The charging part of that count is that the accused did “knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully receive * * * 100 cases of intoxicating liquor which * * *
Crank v. Scottpublic domain
Justice Blackmun, dissenting. Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.
Crank v. Duckworthpublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Crank v. Texaspublic domain
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
Duckworth v. Crankpublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.
State v. Crankpublic domain
[Cite as State v. Crank, 2016-Ohio-7203.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldw