CALIFORNIA

v.

HARRIS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Phyliss Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476 (7th Cir. 1990)
  …ur standard for evaluating claims of multiplicity: “The traditional test of multiplicity ‘determines whether each count “requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” ’ United States v. Kennedy, 726 F. 2d 546, 547-48 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965, 105 S.Ct. 365, 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984) (quoting United States v. Glanton, 707 F. 2d 1238 (11th Cir.1983)). ‘If one element is required to prove the offense in one count which is not required to prove the offense in the second count, there is no multi…
• Miller v. Cudahy Co., 858 F.2d 1449 (10th Cir. 1988)
  …mposed for a willful and wanton invasion of an injured party’s rights, the purpose being to restrain and deter others from committing like wrongs. Id. at 1446; Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 235 Kan. 387, 681 P. 2d 1038, 1061 cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965, 105 S.Ct. 365, 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984). “Wantonness is characterized by a realization of the imminence of damage to others and a restraint from doing what is necessary to prevent the damage because of indifference as to whether it occurs.”9 Boehm v.…