Getchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
282 F.2d 681 · 1960
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 1982 · most notably McDaniel v. United States (1965), Addison v. United States (1963)
49 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Kann v. United States · Parr v. United States · Riggs v. United States
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In fact, there is some authority that under § 17(a) of the Securities Act (and presumably the other SEC fraud provisions) the use of the mails (or presumably of interstate facilities) is the ‘gist’ of the offense — the corpus delicti — as it is under the mail fraud statute. Whether it is the use of the mails or the fraud which is the gist of the offense assumes some importance in the drafting of indictments. Thus, it has long been settled under the mail fraud statute that each mailing in furtherance of a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate offense. Hence each count is limited to one ‘count mailing’ so that the indictment will not be void for duplicity. This practice has been followed as a matter of course under the SEC fraud provisions. At the same time, the Government has always taken the position that the gist of the offense there is the fraud rather than the jurisdictional means. Its purpose was to make sure that incidental mailings not essential to the execution of the scheme would suffice. But, since that is now quite clear even under the mail fraud statute (as we shall see in a moment), there is no longer much point to the search for the corpus delicti under the SEC fraud provisions. In short, except for the fact that use of the designated interstate facilities is an alternative to use of the mails in the SEC fraud provisions, there is nothing in the language of the mail fraud statute or the SEC provisions ‘which would justify the requirements that the fraud or de”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It shall he unlawful for any person in the sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly— “(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or “(2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a maferial fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were-made, not misleading, or “(3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“can fully sympathize with an accused who, without any previous criminal record, finds himself convicted of the crime of mail fraud,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.