·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0668-01; Unicode character offsets [11661:11894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f4086637fbe3659b9c3436280b529e9f82158bf57ed3b57d504b7c7f7ebea967.Judicial construction of the scheme language requires fraudulent intent, distinct from negligence or contract breach. A deliberate material deception aimed at obtaining the victim's property suffices without intent to leave the victim economically worse off. Earlier intent-to-harm formulations must be read subject to Kousisis.
interpretation
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the alleged use of the mail must be "sufficiently closely related to," and operate to further, the defendant's scheme.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the alleged use of the mail must be "sufficiently closely related to," and operate to further, the defendant's scheme.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0668-01; Unicode character offsets [14265:14407] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f4086637fbe3659b9c3436280b529e9f82158bf57ed3b57d504b7c7f7ebea967.Evaluate the mailing against the actual scope and completion of the scheme. Bridge, 553 U.S. 639, 647 (2008), states the substantive mail-fraud nexus while deciding a civil RICO case; its separate RICO injury requirements do not become mail-fraud elements. Lulling mailings can further an ongoing scheme, but Hagen rejected incidental letters after the charged scheme was complete; Gross found collection mailings within an ongoing kickback scheme at the indictment stage.
interpretation
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.
Even if Hagen broke a promise to refund $12,000 for the early termination, breach of contract is not fraud, and the cashing of Penner's check in April was not in furtherance of any dispute that arose at the end of the grazing season.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0668-01; Unicode character offsets [11661:11894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f4086637fbe3659b9c3436280b529e9f82158bf57ed3b57d504b7c7f7ebea967.Judicial construction of the scheme language requires fraudulent intent, distinct from negligence or contract breach. A deliberate material deception aimed at obtaining the victim's property suffices without intent to leave the victim economically worse off. Earlier intent-to-harm formulations must be read subject to Kousisis.