§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

42 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. Kolender v. Lawson

    461 U.S. 352 (1983)   Cited 3,041 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

  3. Chicago v. Morales

    527 U.S. 41 (1999)   Cited 1,298 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vagueness that "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests" is subject to facial challenge

  4. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

    521 U.S. 844 (1997)   Cited 987 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding parts of § 223 unconstitutional under the First Amendment

  5. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

    564 U.S. 552 (2011)   Cited 506 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on "speech result[ing] from an economic motive" is not "a mere commercial regulation"

  6. McNally v. United States

    483 U.S. 350 (1987)   Cited 1,100 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"

  7. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n

    514 U.S. 334 (1995)   Cited 789 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected

  8. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

    485 U.S. 46 (1988)   Cited 793 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them

  9. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

    510 U.S. 569 (1994)   Cited 629 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

  10. Smith v. Goguen

    415 U.S. 566 (1974)   Cited 1,196 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute void-for-vagueness without finding that Goguen's actions constituted protected speech

  11. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles

    18 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 13,403 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 3,229 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 190.25 - Criminal impersonation in the second degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 190.25   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when he: 1. Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; or 2. Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and does an act in such pretended capacity with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; or 3. (a) Pretends to be a public servant, or wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge, insignia or facsimile

  15. Section 704 - Military medals or decorations

    18 U.S.C. § 704   Cited 76 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[f]raudulent claims surrounding the receipt of [military decorations and medals] damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals"

  16. Section 170.05 - Forgery in the third degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 170.05   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument. Forgery in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor. N.Y. Penal Law § 170.05

  17. Section 190.78 - Identity theft in the third degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 190.78   Cited 32 times
    Requiring the thief to have caused financial loss or to have intended to commit a separate crime that is at least a class A misdemeanor

  18. Section 190.79 - Identity theft in the second degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 190.79   Cited 28 times
    Requiring theft of $500 or commensurate financial hardship or that the assumption of identity was to commit or attempt to commit a felony

  19. Section 156.05 - Unauthorized use of a computer

    N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05   Cited 27 times

    A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization. Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor. N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05

  20. Section 170.35 - Criminal possession of a forged instrument; no defense

    N.Y. Penal Law § 170.35   Cited 12 times

    In any prosecution for criminal possession of a forged instrument, it is no defense that the defendant forged or participated in the forgery of the instrument in issue; provided that a person may not be convicted of both criminal possession of a forged instrument and forgery with respect to the same instrument. N.Y. Penal Law § 170.35