United States v. Coggin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this case it was not the entry upon the pension roll nor the certificate issued that was false or fraudulent. That was all genuine and authentic. The certificate issued Vas a genuine, true certificate, declaring that the defendant was entitled to a pension, but the claim was fraudulent. That certificate had been obtained, according to the indictment, by fraud, and when It was presented, as the indictment alleges it was, to the pension agent at Milwaukee, it constituted a false and fraudulent claim against the United States, and upon that false and fraudulent claim he obtained money, although the •certificate was genuine. And that this was the meaning of the statute there can be no doubt, because immediately following the clause of the statute already referred to is the case of a person who presents a fraudulent or false ■ certificate, or who for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding to obtain, the payment or approval of such claim, makes, uses, or causes 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. So that the two classes of offense are distinct and separate, one speaking of a false claim in itself knowing the claim to be false, and another a false certificate knowing it to be false. So 1 hold that although the fraud in obtaining the entry of the name of the defendant upon the pension roll and the issuance of the certificate wer”

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