Legal Opinion

United States v. Robert S. Kelem, United States of America v. Barnett Gartrell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 5, 1969No. 23166_1PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ELY, Circuit Judge:

Following their convictions of several offenses under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, Kelem and Gartrell brought appeals which we have consolidated. They insist that the statute does not proscribe the particular fraud which they practiced.

It is elementary that the jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by the Constitution and congressional action; hence, statutes such as section 1341 should be carefully and strictly construed in order to avoid extension beyond the limits intended by Congress. Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270, 54 S.Ct. 700, 78 L.Ed.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Pereira v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Healy v. RattaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Kann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. Parr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. United States v. MazeSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. United States v. MandelCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
  3. United States v. Gary HalbertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  4. United States v. Jerry R. BohonusCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  5. United States v. John Von BartaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API