Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Maze Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man used a stolen credit card across several states. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent mailing of sales slips by merchants to the issuing bank was not part of his criminal scheme, thus reversing his federal mail fraud conviction.
Legal Significance: This case narrowly interprets the federal mail fraud statute, holding that use of the mails must be for the purpose of executing the fraud itself, not merely an incidental result, such as the settling of accounts between victims after the fraud is complete.
United States v. Maze Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent Thomas Maze stole his roommate’s automobile and BankAmericard in Louisville, Kentucky. He then embarked on a trip, using the stolen credit card to obtain food and lodging at motels in California, Florida, and Louisiana by signing his roommate’s name to the sales invoices. In the ordinary course of business, each motel mailed the signed invoices to the card-issuing bank in Louisville for payment. The roommate had already reported the card stolen. Upon his return, Maze was indicted and convicted on four counts of violating the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The indictment alleged that Maze’s scheme to defraud the bank and merchants included causing the sales invoices to be mailed, and that the delay inherent in the mailing process enabled him to continue his fraudulent activities before the scheme could be detected. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the mail fraud convictions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the use of the mails to transmit credit card invoices from defrauded merchants to the issuing bank, after a defendant has already fraudulently obtained goods and services, satisfy the statutory requirement that the mailing be “for the purpose of executing” a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341?
No. The Court affirmed the reversal of the mail fraud convictions, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui off
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the use of the mails to transmit credit card invoices from defrauded merchants to the issuing bank, after a defendant has already fraudulently obtained goods and services, satisfy the statutory requirement that the mailing be “for the purpose of executing” a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341?
Conclusion
This decision limits the application of the mail fraud statute by requiring Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a
Legal Rule
Under the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis focused on the nexus between the mailing and the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The federal mail fraud statute requires that the use of the