Legal Opinion
United States v. Musal
District Court, S.D. Iowa
Decided January 25, 2006No. 4:02-CV-40449-JEGPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
GRITZNER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Richard Musal’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial, which the Government resists. Neither party has requested a hearing, and the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. For the reasons discussed below, Musal’s motions must be denied.
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS
Access Air, Inc. (“Access Air”), was a corporation that provided commercial passenger air transportation throughout areas of the continental United States. Access Air was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ac cess Air Holdings, Inc.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Vicki CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanuel CLEAVER II, Et Al., Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Laverne Belk v. City of Eldon, Scott Harrison, Steve Wood, Brad Veach, Ron BlyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- Randall Herbert Webner v. Titan Distribution, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Thomas G. HeywardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Donald R. Ferguson v. United States v. Richard Musal, Third Party Nicholas P. Miller, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Rineer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007