Springstead v. Tice Towing Line, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of personal contact with prospective victims was sufficient to sustain conviction for knowing participation in fraudulent scheme
• holding defendant Hall liable for both his own acts of fraud and those committed by co-schemers
• explaining that for mail fraud and wire fraud “with or without the money, the offense was complete”
• holding that the defendants were not entitled to the attempt reduction for partially com- pleted offenses because each call to a victim “was a separate, completed fraud offense . . . even if the object of the fraud was not ultimately attained”
• observing that when evidence “satisfies the four-part test, the district court should admit the evidence unless its prejudicial impact substantially outweighs its probative value” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying co-schemer liability principles only with respect to defendant’s liability for his “co-schemers’ use of the mails or wires,” not for his own acts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).