Legal Opinion
Smith v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 13, 1916No. 2576PublishedCited by 10 opinions
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the First Division of the Northern District of California; Maurice T. Dooling, Judge. James B. Smith and others were convicted of an offense, and they bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
RUDKIN, District Judge.
The indictment in this case was returned undef section 37 of the federal Penal Code of 1909. Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1096 (Comp. St. 1913, § 10201). The charging part of the indictment, omitting mere formal parts and the overt acts, reads as follows:
“That the said defendants, and said divers other persons whose names are to said grand jurors unknown, did plan, confederate, conspire, and agree, under the guise and name of the said corporation, to wit, Western Fuel Company, to defraud the United States out of a large part of the import duties on coal imported…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Clyde Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- McDonald v. PlessSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Holder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Holmgren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cochran v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- United States v. GlasserCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Ng Sing v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- United States v. Kansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1946
- Boyd v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.