Legal Opinion

United States v. Urban

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 20, 2005No. 03-1325, 03-1326, 03-1356, 03-1370, 03-1371, 03-2315, 03-2737, 03-2751PublishedCited by 139 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, plumbing inspectors employed by the City of Philadelphia, were convicted of improperly accepting payments from plumbers whose work they inspected in violation of the Hobbs Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). They raise a host of contentions on appeal, including primarily a challenge to the District Court’s jury instruction regarding the Hobbs Act’s requirement that the covered misconduct have affected commerce. We find none of Appellants’ contentions sufficient to support overturning their convictions.…

2Cases cited99 opinions

  1. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Zafiro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

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

3Cited by139 opinions

  1. United States v. VosburghCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
  2. Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  3. United States v. LoreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. HuetCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
  5. United States v. FumoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011

134 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