§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Raphael Golb, Appellant.

Brief

49 Cited authorities

  1. Skilling v. U.S.

    561 U.S. 358 (2010)   Cited 1,651 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal

  2. U.S. v. Williams

    553 U.S. 285 (2008)   Cited 1,604 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that solicitation is "categorically excluded from First Amendment protection"

  3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism

    491 U.S. 781 (1989)   Cited 2,865 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that music is protected expression

  4. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates

    455 U.S. 489 (1982)   Cited 3,178 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the possible inhibition of a constitutional right is "perhaps the most important factor"

  5. Grayned v. City of Rockford

    408 U.S. 104 (1972)   Cited 4,713 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute's words, even when "marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," are clear based on "what the ordinance as a whole prohibits"

  6. R.A.V. v. St. Paul

    505 U.S. 377 (1992)   Cited 1,613 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"

  7. Broadrick v. Oklahoma

    413 U.S. 601 (1973)   Cited 3,440 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees

  8. United States v. O'Brien

    391 U.S. 367 (1968)   Cited 2,728 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intermediate scrutiny applies to regulations "when 'speech' and 'nonspeech' elements are combined in the same course of conduct"

  9. Maynard v. Cartwright

    486 U.S. 356 (1988)   Cited 1,136 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma's "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague

  10. Ratzlaf v. United States

    510 U.S. 135 (1994)   Cited 900 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "[t]o establish that a defendant `willfully violated]' the antistructuring law, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful," and stating that "pecific intent to commit the crime . . . might be negated by, e.g., proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel"

  11. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles

    18 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 13,400 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Relating to mail fraud

  12. Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

    18 U.S.C. § 1030   Cited 3,226 times   408 Legal Analyses
    Holding cellular phones are protected

  13. Section 1346 - Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"

    18 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 1,290 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"

  14. Section 18.2-216 - Untrue, deceptive or misleading advertising, inducements, writings or documents

    Va. Code § 18.2-216   Cited 34 times

    A. Any person, firm, corporation or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale or distribution or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates or