Legal Opinion
United States v. Suquet
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided July 20, 1982No. 80 CR 718PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GETZENDANNER, District Judge:
The facts underlying this case have been set forth at length in my previous decisions rejecting defendants’ claims of wiretap abuse and double jeopardy violation. See United States v. Suquet, 547 F.Supp. 1034 (N.D.Ill.1982) (wiretap); United States v. Suquet, No. 80 CR 718 (N.D.Ill. August 23, 1982), affd. sub nom. United States v. Bounos, 693 F.2d 38 (7th Cir.1982) (double jeopardy). Knowledge of these facts will for the most part be presumed.
This memorandum opinion seeks to explain why the court previously denied various defense…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Moore v. City of East ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Ronald C. Smith, M.D., Robert Miltimore and Donald F. MitchellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Barry GarfinkelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. GarfinkelDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1993