Connection lost
Server error
Yates v. United States 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 fisherman threw undersized fish overboard to thwart federal agents. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction for destroying a “tangible object,” holding that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the term is limited to objects that record or preserve information, not all physical items.
Legal Significance: The case is a major modern example of applying textualist canons of construction (noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) and the rule of lenity to narrow the scope of a broadly worded federal criminal statute, tying its meaning to its specific legislative context.
Yates v. United States 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
John Yates, a commercial fisherman, was found by a federal agent to possess 72 undersized red grouper, a violation of federal conservation regulations. The agent ordered Yates to keep the undersized fish segregated in crates to be used as evidence. After the agent departed, Yates instructed a crew member to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them with other fish to conceal the violation. Yates was subsequently charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which criminalizes knowingly destroying or concealing any “record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede a federal investigation. The government argued that a fish is a “tangible object” under the statute’s plain meaning. Yates countered that, in the context of a statute aimed at corporate fraud and document shredding, “tangible object” should be limited to items used to store information, like computer hard drives or logbooks, and not fish.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, refer to any physical object whatsoever, or is its meaning limited by the surrounding words “record” and “document” to encompass only objects used to record or preserve information?
No. The Court held that a “tangible object” under § 1519 is 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 labo
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 term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, refer to any physical object whatsoever, or is its meaning limited by the surrounding words “record” and “document” to encompass only objects used to record or preserve information?
Conclusion
Yates stands as a significant modern precedent on statutory interpretation, demonstrating 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
Legal Rule
Under the canons of statutory construction noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, 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
Legal Analysis
The plurality, led by Justice Ginsburg, rejected the government's argument that 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a Sarbanes-Oxley