Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 U.S. 620 - Fasulo v. United States

Fasulo v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

272 U.S. 620 · 1926

Citation profile

260
cited by 260 later decisions
23
cited 23 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

152 federal appellate · 24 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 260 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably McNally v. United States (1987), Yates v. United States (1957)

152 federal appellate · 24 district · 10 state decisions

44019261930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedFasulo v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Durland v. United States · United States v. Wiltberger · Hammerschmidt v. United States · United States v. Lacher · United States v. Chase

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(B)efore one can be punished, it must be shown that his case is plainly within the statute.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the Sixth Circuit The phrase ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ is to be construed bearing in mind the underlying purpose of the statute to preserve the use of the mails to legitimate ends.... What is here meant by ‘to defraud’? Obviously the statute is dealing with the wrongful purpose to injure, with which the scheme or artifice must be connected. These words, in the phrase quoted, are not descriptive of the character of the artifice or scheme which has been devised, but rather of the wrongful purpose involved in devising the same, ____ This purpose must be to injure, which doubtless may be inferred when the scheme has such effect as a necessary result of carrying it out____A scheme may include a plan or device for the legitimate accomplishment of an object. But to come within the terms of the statute under consideration the artifice or scheme must be designed to defraud. ‡ ‡ * ‡ if: If the scheme or artificé in its necessary consequence is one which is calculated to injure another, to deprive him of his property wrongfully, then it is to defraud within the meaning of the statute____While it is true that fraud generally implies artifice or deception, one may be defrauded of his property when he has been wrongfully deprived thereof. To ‘deprive of something dishonestly1 is to defraud. It is not uncommon to speak of one as defrauded of his rights who has been wrongfully deprived of them by other means than chicane or trickery. The reward justly due one for services may be wit”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Undoubtedly the obtaining of money by threats to injur[e] or kill is more reprehensible than cheat, trick or false pretenses; but that is not enough to require the court to hold that a scheme based on such threats is one to defraud.... The only means employed by [defendant] to obtain the money demanded was the coercion of fear.... But broad as are the words ‘to defraud,’ they do not include threat and coercion through fear or force.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.