DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg

708 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

9
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 708 KB
Summary

This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.

People (9)

Name Role Context
Ms. Maxwell
A party in the case, making a legal argument against the government's position.
Justice Blackmun Justice
Mentioned for his concurring opinion in a case relevant to the argument.
Justice Brennan Justice
Mentioned for his opinion concurring in judgment.
McDonough
A party in a cited Supreme Court case (McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556) that established a legal test.
Stewart
A party in a case the government is accused of ignoring.
Shaoul
A party in a case (United States v. Shaoul) that the government relies on, but which is argued to be inapplicable or ...
Langford
A party in a case that is argued to be a controlling precedent over Shaoul.
Jama
A party in a cited case (Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t) regarding the non-binding nature of dictum.
Wilkerson
A party in a cited case (United States v. Wilkerson) regarding the binding nature of prior panel decisions.

Organizations (6)

Name Type Context
United States government agency
The opposing party to Ms. Maxwell, referred to as 'the government'.
Immigr. & Customs Enf’t government agency
A party in the cited case Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t.
United States Supreme Court government agency
Mentioned as the highest court whose opinions are binding.
Court of Appeals government agency
Mentioned in the context of its panels being bound by prior decisions.
Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. organization
A party in the cited case Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.
Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys. government agency
A party in the cited case Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.

Timeline (1 events)

2022-03-11
A legal document was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the government's reliance on the Shaoul case precedent.

Relationships (1)

Ms. Maxwell adversarial (legal) United States
The document presents Ms. Maxwell's legal arguments refuting the position taken by 'the government' (United States) in a court case.

Key Quotes (4)

"satisfy the second part of the McDonough test—that the juror could have been challenged for cause."
Source
— The Shaoul Court (Quoted from the Shaoul case (Id. at 816) to explain why the court's subsequent discussion was dictum.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #1
"Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it."
Source
— Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t (Cited from a Supreme Court case to support the argument that a portion of the Shaoul opinion is not binding.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #2
"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court"
Source
— United States v. Wilkerson (Cited to explain the principle of stare decisis within the Court of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #3
"In the event of conflicting panel opinions . . . the earlier one controls, as one panel of this court may not overrule another"
Source
— Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys. (Cited to argue that the earlier Langford decision should control over the later, conflicting Shaoul decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document