TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. George Dadanian and Jean Dadanian

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George DADANIAN and Jean Dadanian, Defendants-Appellants

United States v. Dadanian, 856 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 9, 1988
Docket
Nos. 85-5095, 85-5248
Judges
Chambers, Kozinski, Strand
Citations
856 F.2d 13911988 WL 924641988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738

Opinion — Chambers

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

The petition for rehearing is granted.

We have reexamined our opinion, 818 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir.1987), in light of the subsequent case of McNally v. United States, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2875 , 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). We conclude that McNally was violated and that the failure to instruct the jury on the “property” element was not harmless error.

See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3107-09 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986);

Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 , 107 S.Ct. 1918, 1921-22 , 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987). We also conclude that the Dadanians’ scheme to obtain the gambling license did not affect the City of Bell’s interests as a property-holder.

See McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2881 n. 8.

Cf. Carpenter v. United States, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 316 , 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987). Moreover, the other convictions fail to supply the “property” element required under the mail fraud statute.

See McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2880-81 . The Dadanians’ convictions for mail fraud are reversed.

However, the judgment against defendants still stands as to counts ten, eleven, and twelve. The sentences on counts ten, eleven and twelve will remain intact. The court will vacate the sentences on the mail fraud counts.

The court disregards the request for rehearing en banc without prejudice to any party filing another petition for rehearing on the case as now modified.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 52 cases

View all citing references →
1988: 21989: 81990: 51991: 31992: 31993: 51994: 31995: 11996: 41997: 61998: 11999: 12001: 12006: 42007: 22013: 12016: 12022: 119882026peak 1989 · 8

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Slay717 F. Supp. 689 (E.D. Mo. 1989)
  2. United States v. Shotts145 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1998)
  3. United States v. Gilberto Martinez905 F.2d 709 (3d Cir. 1990)
  4. United States v. Yasuhiro Kato878 F.2d 267 (9th Cir. 1989)
  5. United States v. Larson495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007)
  6. United States v. Telink, Inc.702 F. Supp. 805 (S.D. Cal. 1988)

Most recent

  1. State v. Flores344 Conn. 713 (2022)
  2. United States v. Delton Rushin844 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016)
  3. United States v. DiCristina726 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2013)
  4. United States v. Larson495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007)
  5. United States v. LarsonNo. 05-30076 (9th Cir. July 31, 2007)
  6. United States v. Patricia Ann Larson, United States of America v. Leon Nels Laverdure460 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2006)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) 1,106
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) 1,884
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987) 511
Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987) 604
United States v. Dadanian, 818 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1987) 53

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list