Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. v. Committee of Receivers

Parentheticals

• recognizing that we re verse on the basis of erroneous jury instructions only if "the defendants-appellants can show that the charge given, when read as a whole, caused them prejudice”

  United States v. Shellef and Rubenstein

• proclaiming that relatedness requirement is satisfied even if the predicate acts are not directly related to each other so long as both are related to the RICO enterprise in such a way that they become indirectly connected to each other

  Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.

• referring to sovereign immunity as an “affirmative defense” and a “defense” with respect to foreign government

  Burlington Motor Carriers Inc. v. Indiana Department of Revenue (In Re Burlington Motor Holdings Inc.)

• finding no error in charge where the district court "as a whole accurately charged the jury, especially considering that the court did properly impart the motive requirement numerous times and did give the jury the indictment," which also used the proper language.

  United States v. Abelis

• finding no error in charge where the district court “as a whole accurately charged the jury, especially considering that the court did properly impart the motive requirement numerous times and did give the jury the in dictment,” which also used the proper language.

  United States v. Abelis

• “after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself’

  Ade Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.

• “after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself’

  Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

• refusal to impute to the AUSAs prosecuting the action knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants

  Shakur v. United States

• “While it is true that dependent claims can aid in interpreting the scope of the claims from which they depend, they are only an aid to interpretation and are not conclusive.”

  Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Products, Inc.

• testimony of organized crime and drag sale expert admissible under Rule 702

  United States v. Starzecpyzel

• in construing claims, court begins with the language of the claims themselves

  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Genrad, Inc.