Lustiger v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
386 F.2d 132 (1967)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Lustiger (defendant) formed a company that bought or acquired options to buy land and then subdivided the land and offered the subdivisions for sale to the public. The land, called Lake Mead City, was advertised in newspapers and other publications. Anyone who responded to the advertisements received an investor’s kit and a brochure. The brochure contained statements about the advantages of Lake Mead City and photographs that appeared to depict water scenes in the area. In fact, water was not readily available to Lake Mead City residents for recreational and domestic uses. Purchasers were expected to rely on the brochures in purchasing property. Only a few purchasers actually visited before buying. Lustiger was charged with and convicted of mail fraud based on the misleading representations contained in the brochure. Lustiger appealed, arguing that the district court’s finding that the representations made in the advertising materials were misleading, deceptive, and false was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hamley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
