United States v. Clifford J. Quinn, United States of America v. Jan P. Blanton

How courts have described this case

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

• finding allegations of indictment sufficient that “contain! ] words of similar import” to statutory language
• affirming the \stream of benefits\ theory of liability for 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b) bribery
• rejecting concept of honest-services fraud and holding mail fraud statute limited to “protection of property rights,” id. at 360
• upholding solicitation conviction even though solicitee did not intend to pay bribe because “[i]t is the defendants’ intent that is relevant,” not the solicitee’s
• “Because a bill of particulars cannot cure a deficient indictment, we 3 United States v. Samuel B. RAY, No. 1498 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2025
• “[T]he government is not required in a bribery case to prove ‘an expressed intention (or agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).