Legal Opinion

United States v. Ambort

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided October 19, 1999No. 99-4066PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Defendants Ambort, Benson, Lewis and Stay appeal from an order of the district court denying their motion to dismiss the indictment. The government has moved to dismiss this interlocutory appeal. In United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848, 856 (10th Cir.1992), we held that an interlocutory order in a criminal case that implicates a defendant’s First Amendment “right not to be tried” may be immediately appealable, regardless of the lack of a final order, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether this appeal fits within either that exception or within the collateral order…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Cheek v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Flanagan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. WamplerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  2. United States v. AmbortCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
  3. Ambort v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
  4. United States v. QuaintanceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
  5. United States v. AmbortCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002

2 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