Topic: the first amendment does not shield fraud. · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #13191

5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Illinois Ex Rel. Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc..

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Illinois Ex Rel. Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. Anchor
scotus · 2003
green “the first amendment does not shield fraud.” 15
2 United States v. George B. Godwin, Jr., United States of America v. Willa L. Curry-Robinson,defendant-Appellant
ca4 · 2001
green “inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence.” 4
3 United States v. George B. Godwin, Jr., United States of America v. Willa L. Curry-Robinson,defendant-Appellant
ca4 · 2001
green “may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence.” 4
4 Shaw v. United States
scotus · 2016
green “to convict a person of defrauding another, more must be shown than simply an intent to lie to the victim or to make a false statement to him.” 4
5 United States v. G. Martin Wynn
ca4 · 2012
green “thus, the . . . wire fraud statute has as an element the specific intent to deprive one of something of value through a misrepresentation or other similar dishonest method, which indeed would cause him harm.” 2

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check