We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login Register
  • Newsfeed
  • GTDT
    • GTDT home
    • Guides
    Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
    GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login Register
  • Newsfeed
  • GTDT
    • GTDT home
    • Guides
    Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
    GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Supreme Court rules against certain government prosecutions in “aggravated identity theft” decision

Baker McKenzie

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

USA May 21 2009

On May 4, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the government’s most aggressive use of the “aggravated identity theft” statute, in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), No. 08-108 (May 4, 2009).

Baker McKenzie - Carl Hampe and Robert W. Kent, Jr.
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Immigration
  • IT & Data Protection
  • Litigation
  • Baker McKenzie

Tagged with

  • SCOTUS
  • Identity theft

Popular articles from this firm

  1. US: IRS Begins Notifying Owners of Cryptocurrency of Potential Failures to Report Income and Pay Taxes *
  2. SEC Obtains TRO Against Organizer of “Fraudulent” ICO *
  3. The Pros and Cons of Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Agreements *
  4. U.S.: District court refuses to allow non-parties to arbitration to intervene in enforcement proceedings, despite non-parties’ potential alter-ego liability for award. *
  5. US continues national emergency with respect to Export Control Regulations *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Powered by Lexology

Featured Video

Chris McLeod
1:58 min

Chris McLeod

Elkington + Fife LLP

The future of UK trademark practice
Watch now

Related topic hubs

  1. SCOTUS
  2. USA
  3. Litigation
  4. IT & Data Protection

Related USA articles

  1. Supreme Court restricts use of identity theft statute to combat undocumented workers *
  2. Policy Exclusions Eliminate Coverage for TCPA Lawsuit *
  3. Class action waivers are enforceable despite any state statutory right to a class action *

Related international articles

  1. Drunk and Disorderly: Voluntary Intoxication in Sentencing in Singapore * - Singapore
  2. Applications for leave to appeal dismissed - 21 April 2016 * - Canada
  3. Theft article: punishments * - United Arab Emirates
Jason T Weintraub
Director, Legal
Taco Bell
What our clients say

 “Let me add some more positive feedback. I love the newsstand!”

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2019 Globe Business Media Group