Legal Opinion

United States v. Coffey

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided March 29, 2005No. 2:04-cv-00651PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GLASSER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The grand jury returned a two count superseding indictment (the “indictment”) against defendants Arthur Coffey (“Coffey”), Harold Daggett (“Daggett”) and Albert Cernadas (“Cernadas”) (collectively, “defendants”). Before the Court are various pretrial motions by defendants. 1 Coffey and Daggett seek to join all motions made by codefendants to the extent that such motions are not inconsistent with their own. 2 Therefore, to that extent, the Court will rule on the pending motions as if they were filed by all defendants.

The indictment arises…

2Cases cited70 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Zafiro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Stirone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Sekhar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. United States v. GottiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
  3. United States v. International Longshoremen's Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007
  4. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
  5. United States v. GottiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API