United States v. Seasholtz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The basic elements of a violation of the Mail Fraud Statutes are (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money or property by false pretenses, representations or promises, and (2) use of the United States Mails to further the scheme. (Citations omitted.) We have said that a scheme to defraud under the statute is one in which it is ‘reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.’ (Citation omitted.) Willful intent may be inferred from the statements and activities of the parties to the scheme. (Citations omitted.) In Crosby v. United States, 183 F.2d 373 , 375 (10th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 906 , 71 S.Ct. 274 , 95 L.Ed. 656 , this court said: <* * * Fraudulent intent is in many instances not susceptible of proof by direct evidence. In numerous cases it must be inferred from a series of acts and pertinent circumstances. (Citations omitted) One will not be heard to say that he did not intend the natural consequences of his conduct. “If a man intentionally adopts certain conduct in certain circumstances known to him, and that conduct is forbidden by the law under those circumstances, he intentionally breaks the law in the only sense in which the law ever considers intent.” (Citations omitted)’ “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, appellate courts appraise the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, together with the reasonable inferences to be dra”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Curtis

2. ““The basic elements of a violation of the Mail Fraud Statutes are (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money or property by false pretenses, representations or promises, and (2) use of the United States Mails to further the scheme. (Citations omitted.) We have said that a scheme to defraud under the statute is one in which it is ‘reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.’ (Citation omitted.) Willful intent may be inferred from the statements and activities of the parties to the scheme.” United States v. Seasholtz, 435 F.2d 4 (10th Cir. 1970).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ammons

3. “[I]n the absence of a statutory or constitutional requirement the government is not required to endorse the names of its witnesses on the information or indictment, nor is there a requirement that the government disclose its witnesses in any other manner, except in the case of a trial for a capital offense. [Citations omitted.] [United States v. Seasholtz, 435 F.2d 4, 7 (10th Cir. 1970).] 19”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Holmes