TEXAS COMPANY ET AL.

v.

STEAMSHIP SANTA RITA, ETC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• McQUILLEN v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 112 F.2d 877 (4th Cir. 1940)
  …personal service of process within the jurisdiction or such general appearance in the case as amounts thereto.” The facts in the Grable case were in many respects similar to those of the instant case, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 260 U.S. 735, 43 S.Ct. 95, 67 L.Ed. 488. As the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as there are many federal statutes dealing with these courts in such fields as venue and process and jurisdiction, it is highly important that litigants should…
• United States v. Frankel, 721 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1983)
  …defraud is found by the jury to exist .. . even though the material itself in the opinion of the jury is completely ineffective to deceive anyone.” Id. at 832 (emphasis in original). In Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F. 776 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 260 U.S. 735, 43 S.Ct. 96, 67 L.Ed. 488 (1922), this court stated, “If a scheme is devised with the intention of defrauding, and the mails are used in executing it, it makes no difference that there is not a misrepresentation of a single existing fact.” Id. at 7…
• United States v. Harrison P. Cronic, 900 F.2d 1511 (10th Cir. 1990)
  …ome within the scope of the statute even absent an affirm [*1514] ative misrepresentation. See United States v. Rafsky, 803 F. 2d at 108; United States v. Frankel, 721 F. 2d at 921; Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F. 776, 779 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 260 U.S. 735, 43 S.Ct. 96, 67 L.Ed. 488 (1922) (“If a scheme is devised with the intention of defrauding, and the mails are used in executing it, it makes no difference that there is not a misrepresentation of a single existing fact.”). A scheme to obtain money…