Ontai v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Error is assigned to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to acquit the plaintiff in error on the ground that the property which he purchased of the soldier had been allowed to the latter under a clothing allowance, whereby it became his individual private property, held by him subject only to his contract with the United States not to dispose of the same, but with a tenure which permitted another to purchase the same without incurring any penalty for violation of the statute, and it is contended that the indictment having charged the purchase of public property of the United States, and the proof having shown that the purchase was an article of clothing which had been allowed to a soldier, the variance between the indictment and proof was fatal. The plaintiff in error cites United States v. Michael (D. C.) 163 Fed. 609 , a case in which the court, in construing section 5438 of the Eevised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3674), held that a civilian did not commit a penal offense in purchasing from a soldier clothing issued to the latter during the term of his enlistment, and that clothing when issued to an enlisted soldier under the .rules of the War Department was no longer public property,, but was the soldier’s private property. That decision, however, in our opinion is not sustained by reason or by authority. The contrary was held in United States v. Hart (D. C.) 146 Fed. 202 ; United States v. Koplik (C. C.) 155 Fed. 919 ; United States v. Smith (C. C.) 156 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bolland v. United States

2. ““ * * * And whoever shall knowingly purchase or receive in pledge for any obligation or indebtedness from any soldier, officer, sailor, or other person called into or employed in tlie military or naval service, any arms, equipments, ammunition, clothes, military stores, or other public property, whether furnished to the soldier, sailor, officer, or person, under a clothing allowance or otherwise, such soldier, sailor, officer, or other person, not having the lawful right to pledge or sell the same, shall be lined not more than five hundred dollars, and imprisoned for not more than two years.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bolland v. United States