Epstein Secrets

No. 3-89-293-H. Jan. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify b

t breached agreement by false testimony as to his additional involvement in drug deal); United States v. Britt, 917 F.2d 353, 355-56, 360-61 (8th Cir.1990) ( defendant agreed to fully and com- pletely cooperate with the United States and, * over the course of a year, had several debriefings, recor- ded

stemming from coverage dispute over hurricane dam- age. Association's former attorneys moved to intervene and for ancillary proceeding. Holdings: The District Court, Chris McA- liley, United States Magistrate Judge, held that: (1) intervention as of right was warranted, and (2) ancillary proceeding to sanctio

which `substantially increases the oppor- tunity for potential adverse•s to obtain the information' ".); Carter Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1990) (Fed.Cir.1990) (en bane), superseded in non-relevant part. Pub.L. No. 103-424, § 9(c). 108el at. 4361 (1994), as recogniz in Mudge . United Stat

tentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. De- fendants other than the abuser moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Caputo, J., held that: (1) diocesan defendants did not aid and abet in federal CAVRA violation; (2) court had supplemental jurisdiction over st

dismissed based on the statute of limitations with no discussion of a criminal conviction as a prerequisite. See Andes v. Knox, 905 F.2d 188 (8th Cir.1990) (victim's claim barred by the statute of limitations though she did not know who had actually done the wiretapping until he pleaded guilty); Bro