Citation network
Mcnally Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1987
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 483 U.S. 350 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government. See, e.g., United States v. MandelSearch
-
and he in fact makes governmental decisions. 790 F.2d at 1296 (quoting United States v. MargiottaSearch
-
the mail fraud statute was to protect the people from schemes to deprive them of their money or property. Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
intangible rights, such as the right to have public officials perform their duties honestly. See, e.g., United States v. ClappsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. StatesSearch
-
Hammerschmidt v. UnitedSearch
-
the harsher only when Congress Page 483 U. S. 360 has spoken in clear and definite language. United States v. BassSearch
-
United States v. UniversalSearch
-
C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218 , 344 U. S. 221 -222 (1952). See also Rewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Fasulo v. UnitedSearch
-
Together with No. 86-286, Gray v. UnitedSearch
-
unless the documents are themselves false, see Parr v. UnitedSearch
-
reaches conspiracies other than those directed at property interests. See, e.g., Haas v. HenkelSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
is based on a consideration not applicable to the mail fraud statute. In Curley v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 130 F. 1 (CA1 1904), cited with approval in Haas v. HenkelSearch
-
violate the second clause by seeking to obtain money or property from his victim through false pretenses. Cf. Streep v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 492, 498 (CA4 1975). See Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
Parr v. UnitedSearch
-
Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
regulation of state affairs, and Congress clearly has the authority to regulate such misuse of the mails. See Badders v. UnitedSearch
-
use of the mails for fraudulent schemes. McElroy v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d at 764. In United States v. RauhoffSearch
-
Weiss v. PageSearch
-
and the construction we have given to that statute should be virtually dispositive here. In Haas v. HenkelSearch
-
Id. at 216 U. S. 479 . Again, in Hammerschmidt v. UnitedSearch
-
does not require any evidence that the Government has suffered any property or pecuniary loss. See also United States v. BarnowSearch
-
See ante at 483 U. S. 358 -359, n. 8, citing United States v. KeitelSearch
-
See Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
clear that Congress' use of the term showed no intent to limit the statute to property loss. Cf. Saint Francis College v. Al-KhazrajiSearch
-
has often included deceptive seduction, although that crime often includes no property or monetary loss. See State v. ParkerSearch
-
United States v. CondolonSearch
-
United States v. HolzerSearch
-
and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears Page 483 U. S. 372 in the statute, see United States v. DialSearch
-
that his conduct caused no demonstrable loss either to a litigant or to the public at large. See, e.g., United States v. KeaneSearch
-
United States v. MantonSearch
-
demonstrates that it was adding to, not modifying, the original prohibition. See Reiter v. PageSearch
-
Streep v. UnitedSearch
-
McElroy v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial