Shell Oil Co. v. Piamco, Inc.

How later courts describe this case

• holding that the amount of restitution under the VWPA or the FPA may not exceed the actual losses flowing from the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.
• rejecting "the view that the mainstreaming provisions of the Act are satisfied only if a handicapped child is educated in the same classroom with non-handicapped children"
• this Court refused to address an exclusionary rule issue which the Commonwealth failed to adequately preserve
• evidence supported jury verdict that the Form 355’s submitted to SBA constituted mail fraud because the forms were not reflective of defendant’s true size