HOWARD

v.

COLORADO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

• J. Russell Forlaw, M.D. v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1984)
  …has a failure to conduct a physical examination, alone, been the basis for finding a physician criminally liable under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the functional equivalent to § 893.13, Fla.Stat. See, e.g., United States v. Harrison, 651 F. 2d 353 (5th Cir.), 454 U.S. 1126, 102 S.Ct. 975, 71 L.Ed.2d 113 (1981) (evidence sufficient to submit charges to jury where testimony showed doctor made up names for prescriptions, asked "patients” to supply names for same purpose, and alluded to difficulties he might have by havin…
• Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir. 1987)
  …discussed in text below, which suggests that the ultimate determination on the “deliberately elicit" prong is a mixed question of fact and law. Although the Third Circuit in United States v. Van Scoy, 654 F. 2d 257, 260-61 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1126, 102 S.Ct. 977, 71 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981), labeled the agency issue a question of fact and applied the clearly erroneous standard, the subsidiary facts there mandated that conclusion. To the same effect, see United States v. Malik, 680 F. 2d 1162, 1165…
• United States v. SUN Myung Moon and Takeru Kamiyama, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …1 (2d Cir.1974). No evidentiary hearing or discovery is mandated unless the district court, in its discretion, see id. at 1212, finds that both prongs of the test have been met. See United States v. Ness, 652 F. 2d 890, 892 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126, 102 S.Ct. 976, 71 L.Ed.2d 113 (1981); United States v. Catlett, 584 F. 2d 864, 866 (8th Cir.1978); Berrios, 501 F. 2d at 1211. We cannot say on this record that the-district court abused its discretion in holding that appellants failed to demonstra…