United States v. Seymour Pollack, United States of America v. Paul M. Sachs, United States of America v. William Cudd

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “success of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements ... under Section 1343.”
• indictment sufficient because it outlined mail and wire fraud scheme with sufficient particularity to avoid surprise and permit defendants to prepare a defense
• indictment sufficient because it outlined mail and wire fraud scheme with sufficient particularity to avoid surprise and permit defendants to prepare a defense
• to hold that actual loss to victim is required “would lead to the illogical result that the legality of a defendant’s conduct would depend on his fortuitous choice of a gullible victim”
• disclosures three days before trial and one day before trial adequate
• production three days and one day before trial adequate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).