Legal Opinion
United States v. Furey
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 14, 1980No. Crim. 79-268PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BECHTLE, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are the motions of the defendants Ronald Furey (“Furey”) and Joseph DiLuzio (“DiLuzio”) for a new trial and/or judgment of acquittal, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 and 29(c). After careful review of the arguments of counsel, the factual record of this case and the applicable judicial authority, the Court will deny the defendants’ motions.
This case focused on a residential development project commonly known as “Ravenscliff,” which is composed of approximately 126 acres of property located in Radnor and Newtown…
2Cases cited69 opinions
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Stirone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Rideau v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- United States v. Joseph M. MargiottaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Warner Bros. Inc., J. Joseph Bainton, Esquire v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., and Yun Yon ChoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- United States v. John Andrew SturmCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Myles E. Billups, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Lawrence Ray CarmichaelCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.