Prussian v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

244 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “"Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States or any officers or agents thereof, any sum of money ... [s]hall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Barrett · 608 F. Supp. 1530 - United States v. Jimicum

2. ““We think the indorsement was a ‘writing’ within that section. Its language is ‘comprehensive’ and ‘all-embracing.’ Cf. United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183 , 188, 34 S.Ct. 112 , 58 L.Ed. 177 . The writings enumerated have no common characteristic from which a purpose may be inferred to restrict the statute to any particular class of writings. The addition of ‘other writing’ to thé enumeration was therefore not for the purpose of including writings of a limited class, but rather of extending the penal provisions of the statute to all writings of every class if forged for the purpose of obtaining money from an officer of the United States.” (Cases cited.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. United States · United States v. LeCoe

3. “No such averment is required by the language of § 29 [the predecessor of 18 U.S.C. § 495 ] relating to forged endorsements. Other provisions of § 29 punish the uttering of a forged writing, or presenting any such writing to an officer of the United States in support of any claim, “with intent to defraud the United States.” But the present indictment is not under either of those provisions. The charge is forgery of the endorsement, which is punishable by the different provisions, now in question, if committed merely “for the purpose of obtaining or receiving” from an officer or agent of the United States any sum of money. This imports an intent to defraud the United States, which the indictment sufficiently charges in the language of the statute.”

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