Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9,896
cases (
966 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case:
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989).
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989).
· cites it 10× “Schmuck, a used-car distributor, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on 12 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341 and 1342. App. 3. The alleged fraud was a common and straightforward one.”
United States v. Davila, 856 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2017).
· cites it 13× “Money or Property Mail Fraud Berroa, Julio Castro, and Geraldo Castro appeal their convictions for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . This provision proscribes use of the mails in furtherance of "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by…”
United States v. Milovanovic, 678 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 20× “We address: (1) whether breach of a fiduciary duty is an element of honest services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346; (2) whether the superseding indictment, charging the defendants with a bribery-based scheme to defraud that breached a material relationship of trust,…”
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999).
· cites it 6× “Neder was indicted on, among other things, 9 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341 ; 9 counts of wire fraud, in violation of § 1343; 12 counts of bank fraud, in violation of § 1344; and 2 counts of filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.”
United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 (1974).
· cites it 18× “Upon respondent's return to Louisville he was indicted on four counts of violation of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341 , and one count of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.”
United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986).
· cites it 8× “We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to whether a misjoinder under Rule 8 of the Federal *440 Rules of Criminal Procedure is subject to the harmless-error rule, [1] and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in this case to support…”
United States v. Tamika Riley, 621 F.3d 312 (3rd Cir. 2010).
· cites it 10× “Defendant-Appellants and Cross-Appellees (“Appellants”) Sharpe James (“James”) and Tamika Riley (“Riley”) were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of three counts of mail fraud (Counts 1-3) as part of a scheme to convey City-owned…”
United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Consequently, a federal agency's a priori decision to disburse grant funds through periodic installments neither bars criminal liability nor constitutes an unfair conversion of one offense into multiple counts.”
United States v. Joseph M. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1982).
· cites it 11× “The Government charges Margiotta with one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976) 6 and five counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.”
Mischelle Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, 686 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “030 , as well as mail and wire fraud and theft of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1343, and 1346. Specifically, Richter alleged that the employee purchased “thousands of parts through [Advance Auto’s] employee discount program in order to operate his side business.”
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “(7) The evidence was sufficient to support Warshak's convictions for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Those convictions are therefore sustained.”
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007).
· cites it 4× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000 ed., Supp. IV). Under the mail fraud statute, the district court would have discretion to sentence the defendant to any sentence ranging from probation up to 50 years of imprisonment (5 years on each count).”
Rickey I. Kanter v. William P. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Due to his fel- ony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm un- der both federal and Wisconsin law.”
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Counts 90-101 charged honest services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 against defendants Swann, Yessick, and PUGH.”
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006).
· cites it 9× “The Government Has Proven that Defendants Caused Mailings and Wire Transmissions, in Furtherance of the Scheme to Defraud, in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and/or 1343 ...........”
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987).
· cites it 6× “§ 371 , and of committing mail fraud in *110 violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341 . The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.”
United States v. Kenneth O. Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 10× “§ 1951 and six counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment on each count were imposed.”
United States v. John Westine, Jr., 883 F.3d 659 (6th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Defendants John Westine and Henry Ramer ("Defendants") appeal their convictions and sentences in their criminal cases involving charges of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 ; money laundering, in *667 violation of 18 U.”
Kaul v. Christie, 372 F. Supp. 3d 206 (D.N.J. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Peterson; • Count Five : Wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , against the same parties as Count 4; • Count Six : Honest services fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985).
· cites it 4× “See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341 , 1343, 1961(1)(B). A third count alleged a conspiracy to violate § 1962(c).”
United States v. Don S. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 7× “On April 23, 2003, following an investigation into the matter, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Ohio indicted defendant on charges of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts One and Two); using fire to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Arnetta Weatherspoon, 581 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 11× “§ 1001 , criminalized her submission of false enrollment certificates to the VA, she could not simultaneously be charged with violating the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , simply because she used the mails to submit the false enrollment certificates.”
United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “§ 841 (Counts 2-5, 7-8, and 10-11); fifteen counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 13-27); ten counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Harold Haimowitz, Dan Scarborough, George L. Onett, 725 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 11× “Counts Six through Eight and Ten through Thirteen charged defendant Haimowitz with substantive mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Count Nine charged defendants Haimowitz and Onett with substantive mail fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. James Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 7× “§ 371 , two counts of mail, fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , and offering and selling unregistered securities under 15 U.”
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997).
· cites it 6× “[2] O'Hagan was charged with 20 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341 ; 17 counts of securities fraud, in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 48 Stat.”
United States v. Johnnie Traxler, 764 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 7× “JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: Defendant Johnnie Traxler pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for making unauthorized purchases on her employer’s credit cards.”
United States v. Edwin David Wood, II, 364 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 8× “§ 1343 , 7 counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , 3 counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 7× “The case calls upon us to interpret and apply the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. Significantly, we hold Defendants were properly convicted of mail and wire fraud, because (1) a right to payment of money for the sale of software is “money or property”…”
United States v. Joseph Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Mail fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , is completed when someone “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,” “for the purpose of executing…”
United States v. Henry Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . According to the indictment, Lo worked for Absolutely New, Inc.”
United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 7× “), convicting Appellant Sanjaya Bahel of four counts of use of the mail or wires in furtherance of fraud that deprived the United Nations, his former employer, of its intangible right to his honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1343, 1346; one count of corrupt…”
Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).
· cites it 4× “10b5 (1991), and the mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341 , 1343 (1988 ed., Supp.”
United States v. Marsha Dobson, 419 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 2005).
· cites it 6× “We have before us the appeal of Marsha Dobson who was convicted by a jury of three counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Dobson argues, inter alia, that she is entitled to a new trial because the District Court failed to properly charge the jury with regard to the…”
Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F. Supp. 2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
· cites it 4×
In re Bruno, 69 A.3d 780 (Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa 2013).
· cites it 5×
In Re Utz, 769 P.2d 417 (Cal. 1989).
· cites it 3×
State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2×
Knix v. State, 922 P.2d 913 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2×
In re Appell, 27 A.D.3d 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
· cites it 2×
In Re Joyce, 26 A.3d 577 (Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa 2011).
· cites it 5×
In re Zuber, 80 A.D.3d 148 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).
· cites it 2×
In re Calle, 301 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
· cites it 2×
Bart, 20 I. & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1992).
Vaccari, 955 N.E.2d 266 (Mass. 2011).
Matter of Anile, 2022 NY Slip Op 02790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
· cites it 3×
In re Miller, 180 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
· cites it 2×
In re Myerson, 182 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
· cites it 2×
In re Fishman, 61 A.D.3d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
· cites it 2×
In re Adolf, 180 A.D.2d 382 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
· cites it 2×
Watts (W.D. Ark. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Grimes (S.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 4×
In re Delany, 237 A.D.2d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997).
· cites it 2×
Shank (W.D. Wash. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Reid (D. Conn. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Flores (N.D.N.Y. 2026).
· cites it 3×
In re Waters, 127 A.3d 895 (Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa 2016).
· cites it 2×
Petery (E.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Matta (D.N.J. 2025).
· cites it 2×
McKoby (W.D. Wash. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Timothy Joseph Smithe & Mary Astor Smithe v. Am. Express, Bank of Am., Bureau of Fiscal Serv., Bureau of Indian Affairs, Byline Bancorp, Inc., Capital One, Citibank, N.A., CitiMortgage, Inc., Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Sec'y of, Dep't of Homeland Sec., Educ., Dep't of the United States, Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, Discover Fin. Servs., Internal Revenue Serv., Comm'r of, Fid. Investments, H&R Block, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Lake Mortg., Ocwen Fin. Corp., Old Nat'l Bank, TriState Capital Bank, US Bank, United States Attorney, United States Attorney Gen., United States Postal Serv., Postmaster Gen., Wells Fargo, Wintrust Fin. Corp., Sec'y of, Illinois Attorney Gen., Illinois Dep't of Pub. Health, Dir. of. (D. Kan. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Smalls (E.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Govan (E.D. Pa. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Fields (W.D. Tenn. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Ricks (N.D. Ind. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Jordan (S.D. Ohio 2026).
· cites it 2×
Hofaker (D. Neb. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Towers (D. Kan. 2026).
· cites it 2×
El-Bey (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 2×
Weise (D.S.D. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Weise (D.S.D. 2026).
· cites it 2×
In re Gaines, 109 A.D.3d 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
· cites it 2×
Eddie L. Hatch, Jr. & Michelle Davis-Hatch v. Gorman & Co. LLC, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Tom Diken, State of Wis., E. Dist. of Wis. Ct., Judge JP Stadtmueller, Gina Colletti, Clerks, Dep’t of Just., FBI Special Agent Christopher J. Burke, Seventh Cir. Ct. of Appeals, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Clerks, State of Washington, DC, US Sup. Ct. Clerks, Marineland Pets, Owner Thomas Dienhart, Associated Bank, WHEDA, Doe Law Firms, Boston Capital, Harris Bank, Index Dev., Jewish Fam. Servs., Scott Crawford Grp., Galbraith Carnahan Architects, Dan Beyer Architect, Colder’s Dep’t Store, Brandsource, Cavalry SPV 1 LLC, Law Firm of Cavalry, The City of Milwaukee, Rocky Marcaux, John & Jane Does, Husch Blackwell LLP & Assocs., Emily Logan (W.D. Wis. 2025).
In re Gaines, 109 A.D.3d 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
· cites it 2×
In re Delany, 206 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).
· cites it 2×
In re Levy, 614 So. 2d 1240 (La. 1993).
· cites it 2×
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.