United States v. Plyler
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Goldsmith v. United States (2d Cir. 1930)
- United States v. Thekkedajh Peethamb Menon (3d Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Gordon W. Curry, Jr. (5th Cir. 1982)
- Carolyn Helen Tacoronte v. United States (10th Cir. 1963)
- United States v. Kaiser (District Court, S.D. Illinois 1960)
- Pina v. United States (9th Cir. 1948)
- Head v. Hunter (10th Cir. 1944)
- United States v. Mullin (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1943)
- United States v. Gilliland (District Court, E.D. Texas 1940)
- United States v. 71.41 Ounces Gold Filled Scrap (2d Cir. 1938)
- United States v. Terranova (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1934)
- United States v. Goldsmith (2d Cir. 1933)
- United States Ex Rel. Starr v. Mulligan (2d Cir. 1932)
- United States v. Menon (3d Cir. 1994)
- Parr v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
- State v. Bradley (Wash. 1937)
- State v. Meeks (Ariz. 1926)
- State v. Lowenstein (Ohio 1924)
- United States v. United States Brokerage & Trading Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1919)
- United States v. Gradwell (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1916)
- Fain v. United States (8th Cir. 1913)
- People v. Rivera Torres (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1948)
- Pueblo v. Rivera Torres (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1948)
- United States v. Lepowitch (Supreme Court of the United States 1943)
- Hammerschmidt v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court.
This is an indictment for forging vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States, certifying to the character., physical capacity, etc., of the applicant, the defendant, and for presenting the same to the Commission. The District Court held that the acts were not frauds against the United States within the Contemplation of R. S., § 5418, and dis *17 charged the défendant. The Government excepted and brought the case to this'court. It now must be regarded as established that “it is not essential to charge or prove an. actual financial or property loss to make a case under the statute.” The section covers this case. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 480; Curley v. United States, 130 Fed. Rep. 1; United States v. Bunting, 82 Fed. Rep. 883.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.