United States v. Cohn’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 339 · 1926
Citation profile
135 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 264 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States Marcus v. Hess (1943), United States v. Gilliland (1941)
135 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hammerschmidt v. United States · Moses Haas v. William Henkel · United States v. James a Patten · Edward Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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 264 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a demand for money or property to which an individual asserts a right against the Government based upon the Government's own liability to the individual.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'for the purpose ... of ... defrauding the Government of the United States.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Act of June 18,1934, amended Section. 35 so that in place of the portion quoted' above there was substituted these words: ‘or whoever ' shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up. by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or ' make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause-to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll; account,'claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or-agency of the United States -or of any corporation in which thé United States of America is a stockholder * * * shall be fined’ etc. “The amendment 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 con- . gressional intent to protect the au- ■ thorized functions of governmental , departments and agencies from the perversion which might result from the deceptive practices described. We see no- ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.