Ebeling v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We do not believe that the term ‘jurisdiction,’ as related to the making or using of a false writing or document, is employed in this technical or limitative sense in the statute involved. Other courts have had occasion to consider the question and have held that § 1001 does not require that a false statement or document must itself have been presented to a department or agency of the United States but that it contemplates as well any knowing making or using of such a statement or document in intended relationship to a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the department or agency. See e. g. United States v. Myers, D.C.Cal., 131 F.Supp. 525, 530 ; United States v. Giarraputo, D.C.N.Y., 140 F.Supp. 831, 834 . We agree. In more explicit terms, we are of the opinion that it constitutes a violation of § 1001, for anyone willfully to make or use a false writing or document, knowing that it contains a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, and intending that it shall bear a relation or purpose as to some matter which is within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, and with the false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry which it contains having a materiality on the department or agency matter.” at 434”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Canel · 392 F. Supp. 183 - United States v. Munoz

2. ““The amendment [of 1934] eliminated the words ‘cheating and swindling’ and broadened the provision ■■so as to leave no adequate basis for "the limited construction which had previously obtained. The statute was made to embrace false and fraudulent statements or representations where these were knowingly •and willfully used in documents or affidavits ‘in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.’ In ■this, there was no restriction to cases involving pecuniary or property loss to the government. The amendment indicated the congressional intent to protect the authorized functions of governmental departments and agencies from the •perversion which might result from The deceptive practices described. We see no reason why this apparent intention should be frustrated By 'construction.” 312 U.S. at page 93 , 61 S-Ct. at page 522.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Coastal Contracting & Engineering Co.

3. “within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States.”

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