# United States v. John L. Lea

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 24, 1980 · 618 F.2d 426

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466620

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John L. LEA, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 24, 1980
- **Citations:** 618 F.2d 426
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cudahy
- **Judges:** Cudahy, Cummings, Wood, Cud-Ahy
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466620

## Opinion text

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that each kickback payment need not be related to a specific shipment of meat (or the mailings pertaining to it). I do think, however, that all the shipments of meat (and related documents), furnishing the basis of the indictment, must have arisen from a transaction in which Lea participated. The government as much as conceded that the latter relationship was not affirmatively and specifically established. For example, the government asserts at pp. 24-25 of its brief:
“Further, even if a Mutual offer was accepted by an employee other than Lea, that fact by itself would not remove the transaction from the fraudulent scheme. Mutual’s offer would nonetheless have been formulated with the benefit of knowledge of competitor’s prices improperly given by Lea in violation of company policy. In addition, the suppliers were compelled to make their offers through Mutual by their inability to do business directly with Lea.”
The facts assumed by these arguments are unclear. A “nexus” based on such dubious arguments is insufficient. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466620. Public record. Not legal advice.