Legal Opinion
United States v. Kanchanalak
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 3, 1999No. CR. 98-0241(PLF)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the supplemental briefs of the parties on defendants’ Motion No. 1, to dismiss Counts 5 and 6 (false statements), and the government’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of Counts 4 and 9 (false statements), as well as on defendants’ Motion No. 2, to dismiss Count 1 (conspiracy), or, in the alternative, to strike prejudicial surplusage, and defendants’ Motion No. 3, to dismiss Counts 1-14 as preempted by FECA. The Court heard argument on January 20 and January 25,1999.
‘ The Court concludes that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. Mary Rose Oakar and Joseph DemioCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- United States v. TrieDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee v. Federal Election CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Patricia S. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. James R. Haga, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. KanchanalakCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLCCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Santa Clara Valley Water District v. CH2M Hill, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020
- United States v. Concord Management and Consulting LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- United States v. KanchanalakCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999