Greber v. United States
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Hedgecock (Cal. 1990)
- State v. Anderson (N.J. 1992)
- United States v. Taylor (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1988)
- United States v. Jimmy D. McGuire (5th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Sammy G. Daily and Frederik A. Figge (10th Cir. 1991)
- Cecilio Hidalgo v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States (2d Cir. 1987)
- United States v. LaHue (10th Cir. 2001)
- United States v. Koenig (District Court, Virgin Islands 1999)
- Feldstein v. Nash Community Health Services, Inc. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1999)
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WEST INDIES TRANSPORT, INC.; WIT EQUIPMENT CO., INC.; And W. JAMES OELSNER, Appellants (3d Cir. 1997)
- United States v. McGuire (5th Cir. 1996)
- Mdn v. Prc (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
- Nursing Home Consultants, Inc. v. Quantum Health Services, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1996)
- Medical Development Network, Inc. v. Professional Respiratory Care/Home Medical Equipment Services, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
- United States v. Neufeld (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1995)
- United States v. Arcadipane (1st Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Corcoran (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1993)
- Polk County, Tex. v. Peters (District Court, E.D. Texas 1992)
- United States v. Kensington Hospital (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1991)
- United States v. Bay State Ambulance & Hospital Rental Service, Inc. (1st Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Ryan, James (3d Cir. 1987)
- United States v. Robert L. Brantley (7th Cir. 1986)
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 of the Court
C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
Petitioner Greber was convicted in United States District Court on several counts of making false statements “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” See 18 U. S. C. § 1001. In connection with these convictions, the District Court refused to submit the question of the materiality of Greber’s statements to the jury, holding that materiality was a question of law to be decided by the court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and upheld the District Court’s determination that materiality was a question of law. See 760 F. 2d 68, 72-73 (1985). Other Circuits have also concluded that materiality is a question of law. See, e. g., Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 362, 367 (CA4), cert. denied, ante, p. 818; United States v. Abadi, 706 F. 2d 178, 180 (CA6), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 821 (1983). Two Circuits, however, have held that materiality under §1001 is a question of fact and should thus be submitted to the jury. See United States v. Irwin, 654 F. 2d 671, 677, n. 8 (CA10 1981); United States v. Valdez, 594 F. 2d 725, 729 (CA9 1979). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.