778 F.2d 673 - United States v. Weinstein — 778 F.2d 673

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Feldman (1988), Fleischhauer v. Feltner (1989)

21 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Philip Weinstein and Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, pro se.

¶2David R. Mackenzie, P.A., Lauderhill, Fla., Harvey M. Stone, New York City, for Falvo.

¶3Drew Neville, Oklahoma City, Okl., B.J. Rothbaum, Jr., New York City, for Rich-man.

¶4Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan & Simon, P.A., Irwin J. Block, Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

¶5Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Gloria C. Phares, Washington, D.C., for plain tiff-appellee.

¶6 *674ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

¶7Before HILL, FAY and SMITH *, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM:

¶10The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word “vacated” to “reversed” where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1535 and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1543.

¶11The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1537:

Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein’s conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence.

¶12In its place the following is substituted: Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein’s conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.

¶13In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.