⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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.

4 opinions for “United States v. Lansang”

Bath v. Bushkinpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990-08-30 · Published · cited 47× · 913 F.2d 817; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15252
913 F.2d 817 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,458, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7563 John W. BATH; James H. Benson; Catherine E. Benson; C.Rex Beougher; Laurie Beougher; Maurice Faler; HelenFaler; Terry Happel; Joan Happel; G.M. Harrison; MaryHarrison; H.S. Jackman; Jeanne Jackman; R.R. Lansang;Clare Lansang; Fred Ockers; Sarahmae Ockers; CeciliaPickett; Tom Smith; Oscar Tellefson; William Wilson;
District Court, D. Wyoming · 1988-09-09 · Published · cited 6× · 695 F. Supp. 1156; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10978; 1988 WL 97434
695 F.Supp. 1156 (1988) John W. BATH, James H. Benson and Catherine E. Benson, C. Rex Beougher and Laurie Beougher, Maurice Faler and Helen Faler, Terry Happel and Joan Happel, G.M. Harrison and Mary Harrison, H.S. Jackman and Jeanne Jackman, R.R. Lansang and Clare Lansang, Fred Ockers and Sarahmae Ockers, Robert Pickett and Cecilia Pickett, Tom Smith and John Scott, d/b/a Scith Enterprises, a Wyoming partnership; Oscar Tellefson, William Wilson and Nanc
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1991-11-01 · Published · cited 12× · 774 F. Supp. 1438; 1991 WL 183780
774 F.Supp. 1438 (1991) The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and The National Power Commission, Plaintiffs, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Westinghouse International Projects Company and Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 88-5150. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. September 20, 1991. As Amended October 1 and November 1, 1991.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990-08-30 · Published · cited 5× · 913 F.2d 817; 1990 WL 128250
PER CURIAM. By these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs seek review of a judgment of the district court dismissing their claims as time-barred.1 Bath v. Bushkin, Gaims, Gaines & Jonas, 695 F.Supp. 1156 (D.Wyo.1988). The facts underlying plaintiffs’ involvement in defendants’ tax shelter scheme are outlined adequately in Bath, 695 F.Supp. at 1158-1159, and we need not repeat the