HARRISON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Nunziato Fusaro, 708 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1983)
  …t does not include an intent charge. This circuit has not decided whether specific intent is an implied element of section 1005, and the circuits are split on this issue. Compare Harrison v. United States, 279 F. 2d 19, 23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864, 81 S.Ct. 105, 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960) (specific intent is not an element), with United States v. Pollack, 503 F. 2d 87, 91 (9th Cir. 1974) (specific intent is an element). Fusaro’s objection to the indictment affords us no opportunity to decide the se…
• United States v. Lewie Frank Tidwell, 559 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …t require proof of intent to complete the offense of unauthorized issuance, Tidwell argues that Congress intended such a requirement but was careless in revising the statute. In Harrison v. United States, 279 F. 2d 19 (5th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864, 81 S.Ct. 105, 5 L.Ed.2d 86, we held that “no specific intent to injure or defraud a bank is an ingredient in the offense charged in the first two paragraphs of Section 1005”. Id. at 23. We reached this conclusion based on the words of the statute w…
• Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Gulf OIL Corp., 386 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1967)
  …* or because the final terms of sale are not identical with those originally presented to the broker * * Risser v. Hirshhorn, 199 F. 2d 917, 919 (2 Cir. 1952). See Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 275 F. 2d 461 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864, 81 S.Ct. 107, 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960). In Katz v. Thompson, 19 Misc.2d 848, 189 N.Y.S. 2d 982, 985, aff’d, 9 A.D.2d 951, 196 N.Y.S.2d 578 (1959), a real estate broker brought an action to recover a commission for the sale of realty against the vendor…