Citation network
Pasquantino Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 26, 2005
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
-
Pasquantino v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 03-725 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Pasquantino V. UnitedSearch
-
States Supreme Court of the United States Pasquantino Et Al. V. UnitedSearch
-
to the Canadian Government. McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
concealed imported liquor from Canadian officials and failed to declare those goods on customs forms. See Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. TexasSearch
-
the statute to reach this prosecution conflicts with a well-established revenue rule principle. See United States v. CraftSearch
-
revenue rule clearly barred such a prosecution as of 1952, the year Congress enacted the wire fraud statute. See Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. Curtiss-WrightSearch
-
in which Breyer, J., joined, and in which Scalia and Souter, JJ., joined as to Parts II and III. Pasquantino v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 03-725 (2005) Opinion of the Court Pasquantino V. UnitedSearch
-
Court of the United States No. 03-725 David B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts, Petitioners V. UnitedSearch
-
a foreign government of tax revenue violates the wire fraud statute. 541 U. S. 972 (2004). Compare United States v. BootsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that a scheme to defraud a foreign nation of tax revenue does not violate the wire fraud statute), with United States v. TrapiloSearch
-
Cleveland v. UnitedSearch
-
to the Government of Canada. McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
as that term ordinarily is employed. See Leocal v. AshcroftSearch
-
Chesterfield v. JanssenSearch
-
Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
to these two categories of fraud. Clark v. MartinezSearch
-
Brogan v. UnitedSearch
-
revenue rule principle. We clarified this constraint on the application of the nonderogation canon in United States v. CraftSearch
-
We examine the state of the common law as of 1952, the year Congress enacted the wire fraud statute. See Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
the rule against foreign penal enforcement was an analogy between foreign revenue laws and penal laws. See Wisconsin v. PelicanSearch
-
s Scottish tax obligations. Peter Buchanan Ltd. v. McVeySearch
-
nations were enforceable, notwithstanding the rule against enforcing contracts with illegal purposes. See Boucher v. LawsonSearch
-
Planche v. FletcherSearch
-
courts also considered void foreign contracts that lacked tax stamps required under foreign revenue law. See Alves v. HodgsonSearch
-
Clegg v. LevySearch
-
s revenue laws. Henry v. SargeantSearch
-
judicial evaluation of the policy-laden enactments of other sovereigns. See, e.g. , Moore v. MitchellSearch
-
see also Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. WatermanSearch
-
in foreign revenue laws, regardless of whether courts need pass judgment on such laws. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. SabbatinoSearch
-
United States v. PierceSearch
-
Small v. UnitedSearch
-
Republic of Honduras v. PhilipSearch
-
Supp. II), we have construed identical language in the wire and mail fraud statutes in pari materia . See Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
Carpenter v. UnitedSearch
-
statutes criminalize similar conduct says little about the scope of either. Footnote 5 See also United States v. TexasSearch
-
Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. SoliminoSearch
-
an inquiry the dissent does not undertake. Footnote 7 See Colorado v. HarbeckSearch
-
Maryland v. TurnerSearch
-
Detroit v. ProctorSearch
-
Moore v. MitchellSearch
-
Arkansas v. BowenSearch
-
Leflar 216, n. 63 (citing cases). Footnote 8 See also Her Majesty the Queen v. GilbertsonSearch
-
the Canadian Government. McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
See Durland v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial