Seventy-two Thousand, Nine Hundred & Forty Dollars in United States Currency v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• noting the trial court’s error in “treating the reasonable accommodation question as separate from the otherwise qualified analysis”
• upholding conviction for mail fraud against McNally challenge where defendant was charged with defrauding state government of its right to sue for sales tax he failed to collect
• “Congressional aim guiding these forfeitures is to recover all of the racketeer’s ill-gotten gains but not to seize legitimately acquired property”
• optometry school not required to waive or vary exam requirements to accommodate student with a vision impairment
• “Thus, in statutory fee-shifting cases, only parties (usually plaintiffs) may seek reimbursement whereas in common fund cases attorneys may seek compensation.”
• "The point at which plaintiffs settle with defendants ... is simply not relevant to determining the risks incurred by their counsel in agreeing to represent them.”
• “An educational institution is not required to accommodate a handicapped individual by eliminating a course requirement which is reasonably necessary to proper use of the degree conferred at the end of a course of study.”
• Arbitrator’s interpretation that untimeliness of a grievance filing was de minimis is not unreasonable