Supreme Court of the United States, 1985

Jackson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 21, 1985 · White

474 U.S. 924; 106 S. Ct. 259; 88 L. Ed. 2d 265; 54 U.S.L.W. 3268; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 4154 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Klingler (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1993)
Chris v. Tenet (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1999)
Hamilton Creek Metropolitan District v. Bondholders Colorado Bondshares (In re Hamilton Creek Metropolitan District) (10th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Kathy Klingler (6th Cir. 1995)
United States v. Reed (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1994)
Parker v. Danaher Corp. ex rel. Danaher Corp. Employee Benefit Plan (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1994)
United States v. Barial (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1993)
Gollobin v. Air Distributing Co., Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1993)
United States v. Long (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1987)
United States v. Lund (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1987)

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.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice White,

dissenting.

Title 18 U. S. C. § 649(a) makes it a crime for one having “money of the United States” under his or her control to fail to deposit it when required to do so. Petitioner, who was convicted under this statute, argued on appeal that the evidence on certain counts was insufficient because it showed only her failure to deposit checks payable to the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected petitioner’s argument that checks are not “money of the United States” for purposes of § 649(a). 759 F. 2d 342 (1985). This holding conflicts with the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation of the statute. See United States v. Fernando, 745 F. 2d 1328 (1984) (strictly construing “money of the United States” to include only currency and not negotiable documents). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict between two Courts of Appeals.

Opinion of the Court

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.