Legal Opinion
Knickerbocker Merchandising Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 14, 1926No. 404PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The only substantial question in the case is of the insufficiency of the proof. It is perfectly true, as it usually is in such eases, that there was no direct evidence of fraud in the scheme, and unless the circumstances were such as justified a compelling inference that the whole plan at some stage became dishonest, the verdict ought not to have been taken. To decide that question, we must remember what the issues really were.
The relevant representations were promissory, and the substantial fraud depended upon the divergence between the promised…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Durland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Kountze v. . KennedyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Cooper v. SchlesingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hindman v. First Nat. Bank of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Whitehurst v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Van Riper v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- United States v. GraysonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- United States v. RoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- United States v. SylvanusCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.