United States v. James T. McNeive

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no mail fraud violation where city employee accepted gratuities in connection with non-discretionary duty
• reversing a conviction under section 1341 because there was no evidence that the defendant “materially misrepresented any facts ... or that he actively concealed his scheme”
• court found that mail fraud was not evident because defendant did not misrepresent the existence or the nature of the gratuity practice
• “[G]eneral statements, standing alone, are not necessarily controlling and must be considered in the proper context of the opinion in which they appear.”
• court found that mail fraud was not evident because defendant did not misrepresent the existence or the nature of the gratuity practice
• “acceptance of small unsolicited gratuities” by city inspector does not violate Section 1341

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).