35 Cited authorities

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
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
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
Hamling v. United States
418 U.S. 87 (1974) Cited 3,343 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that statutory language in an indictment “must be accompanied with ... the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence” and “enable him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of prosecution for the same offense”
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"
Lanzetta v. New Jersey
306 U.S. 451 (1939) Cited 1,120 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding statute unconstitutionally vague for failure to condemn a specific act or omission
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
516 U.S. 85 (1995) Cited 84 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"
U.S. v. Flores
404 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 127 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the propriety of granting a motion to dismiss an indictment by pretrial motion is “contingent upon whether the infirmity in the prosecution is essentially one of law or involves determinations of fact.”
U.S. v. Levin
973 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1992) Cited 125 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a Rule 12 motion inappropriate if it requires the court to "invade the province of the ultimate finder of fact"
U.S. v. Troy
618 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2010) Cited 62 times
Finding indictment for solicitation of a crime of violence (arson) sufficient where it tracked language of statute and identified Defendant and the intended object of arson
Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341 Cited 13,401 times 104 Legal Analyses
Relating to mail fraud
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,271 times 80 Legal Analyses
Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355
Section 1145 - Delinquent contributions
29 U.S.C. § 1145 Cited 2,666 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring that employers contribute according to the terms of plans only "to the extent not inconsistent with law"
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"
Section 664 - Theft or embezzlement from employee benefit plan
18 U.S.C. § 664 Cited 328 times 8 Legal Analyses
Authorizing criminal penalties for any person that embezzles, steals or converts funds from an ERISA plan
Section 1027 - False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
18 U.S.C. § 1027 Cited 118 times 4 Legal Analyses
Penalizing false statement in documents required by [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]

USA v. Thompson et al

35 Cited authorities

Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal

Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

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

Holding that statutory language in an indictment “must be accompanied with ... the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence” and “enable him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of prosecution for the same offense”

Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"

Holding statute unconstitutionally vague for failure to condemn a specific act or omission

Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

Holding the propriety of granting a motion to dismiss an indictment by pretrial motion is “contingent upon whether the infirmity in the prosecution is essentially one of law or involves determinations of fact.”

Holding a Rule 12 motion inappropriate if it requires the court to "invade the province of the ultimate finder of fact"

Finding indictment for solicitation of a crime of violence (arson) sufficient where it tracked language of statute and identified Defendant and the intended object of arson

Relating to mail fraud

Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355

Requiring that employers contribute according to the terms of plans only "to the extent not inconsistent with law"

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"

Authorizing criminal penalties for any person that embezzles, steals or converts funds from an ERISA plan

Penalizing false statement in documents required by [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]