HOLMES

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …d statute. It is not necessary for all aspects of an alleged scheme to be illegal in their separate parts, but rather only that the scheme viewed as a whole involve fraudulent conduct. Holmes v. United States, 134 F. 2d 125 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 776, 63 S.Ct. 1434, 87 L.Ed. 1722 (1943); United States v. Brandom, 273 F.Supp. 253 (E.D.Wis.1967). The purpose of the mail fraud statute is to prevent the post office from being used to carry schemes to defraud into effect. Parr v. United States, 363…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Kartman, 417 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1969)
  …(1967) held a Bureau of Indian Affairs agent was in the scope of official duty where he was working with state law enforcement officials after being deputized as a state official. Arwood v. United States (6 Cir. 1943), 134 F. 2d 1007, cert. denied 319 U.S. 776, 63 S.Ct. 1436, 87 L.Ed. 1722 (1943) rejected a claim that an Alcohol Tax Unit investigator’s participation in an illegal search might remove him from the protection of the federal “scope of duty” statute. The court held it need not determine the va…