Ruiz Morales, Angel IV v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the government, to substantiate a mail fraud or wire fraud charge, must “prove that [the] defendants contemplated some actual harm or injury to their victims” (emphasis omitted)
• finding no fraud because “there was no discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated and actual benefits received” (internal quotation omitted)
• identifying no contemplated harm where defendant mail service misrepresented to customers underlying prices it paid Postal Service for their deliveries
• finding no fraud because “there was no discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated and actual benefits received” (internal quotation omitted)
• finding alleged scheme to defraud did not fall within the mail fraud statute when the “customers received exactly what they paid for”
• finding no fraud because “there was no discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated and actual benefits received”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).