Case Citator › United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee

United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
299 F.3d 303
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
92 of 92
Citing cases (total)
173
Treatment dates
2003
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. United States v. Lipscomb was declined by a Nevada federal district court on whether 18 U.S.C. § 666 requires a connection to federal funds. All 92 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The contrary ruling in United States v. Kranovich is listed below; other opinions continued to apply Lipscomb's rules on circuit precedent, Section 666, and intra-district transfers.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

173 later cases cite United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee; 92 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The District of Nevada required a connection between a Section 666 offense and federal funds or a federal program, rejecting Lipscomb's contrary approach.

    United States v. Kranovich · District of Nevada · filed

    On one side, courts have found that the government need not prove a link exists. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits occupy this camp. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2002); ... While there is no definitive answer to this question, we are persuaded that proof of a link between the federal funds and the theft or bribe is necessary. ... Based on these considerations, we join with the courts that have adopted an offense element requiring that there be a connection between the charged conduct and the expenditure of federal funds by the federal government or the integrity of the operation of a federal program.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace