G Cite
cited 6× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · 2 courts ·
…when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented congress may do so.
at p. 259
✓
cited 6× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 · 3 courts↓ Fading ·
…when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so
at p. 259
✓
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · 3 courts↓ Fading ·
…when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1928 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1928
1977
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Shields (ID 107518) v. Zmuda
of course an act may be criminal under the laws of both state and federal jurisdictions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gonzales v. Raich
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1120
when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to m ake the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented c it may do so.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Avaloz
(3×)
when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama
The Supreme Court has stated that “when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented [Congress] may do so.” Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
See Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 193-194 (1959) (collecting cases); Lanza, supra. As stated in Lanza, supra, 260 U.S., at 382 : “ ‘[Ejach government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. “ ‘It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.’ “See also Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959); Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927) (Holmes, J.) (the propositi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Davis
“It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.” See also Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959); Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927) (Holmes, J.) (the proposition that the State and Federal Governments may punish the same conduct “is too plain to need more than statement”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Basim Omar Sabri
Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258-59 (1927).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Spinello
Indeed, long ago, Mr. Justice Holmes observed, in a case involving a fraud on a state bank which was a member of the Federal Reserve System, "[E]very fraud like the one before us weakens the member bank and therefore weakens the System." Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry Homer Mason v. United States
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89 (1985) (citing Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heath v. Alabama
(2×)
“It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.” See also Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959); Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 258 (1927) (Holmes, J.) (the proposition that the State and Federal Governments may punish the same conduct “is too plain to need more than statement”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Earl Christopher Hunter, United States of America v. Hyland Hill
In an analogous situation, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, said: ‘[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law, embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so.’ Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 [ 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 ].” Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 152-154 , 91 S.Ct. 1357, 1361 , 28 L.Ed.2d 686 . 4 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aptheker v. Secretary of State
(2×)
Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927); North American Co. v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 327 U. S. 686, 710-711 (1946); American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 406 (1950).
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927) (states may enact laws imposing penalties for conduct that federal law also prohibits); see also Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) (supporting same general principle).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Willis
(3×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 , 47 S. Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927) (majority opinion by Holmes, J.) (upholding federal law criminalizing fraud on a state bank member of federal system, even where federal funds not directly implicated).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Labadie
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927) (proposition that State and Federal governments may punish same conduct “is too plain to need more than statement”). “[N]ational banks are subject to the laws of a state in respect of their affairs unless such laws interfere with the purposes of their creation, tend to impair or destroy their efficiency as federal agencies, or conflict with the paramount law of the United States.” First Nat’l Bank in St.
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Jose C.
(3×)
(People v. Beaudrie (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 686, 691 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 289 ]; see Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1981) 453 U.S. 473, 483, fn. 12 [ 69 L.Ed.2d 784 , 101 S.Ct. 2870 ] [“exclusive federal jurisdiction will not prevent a state court from deciding a federal question collaterally even if it would not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a case raising the question directly”].) 2 See Westfall v. United States (1927) 274 U.S. 256, 258 [ 71 L.Ed. 1036 , 47 S.Ct. 629 ] (opn. of Holmes, J.) (“Of course an act may be criminal under the laws of both [state and federal] jurisdictio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sabri v. United States
(2×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927) (majority opinion by Holmes, J.) (upholding federal law criminalizing fraud on a state bank member of federal system, even where federal funds not directly implicated).
examined
Cited "see"
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Boutris
(3×)
Id. at 148-49 ; see Clark v. U.S., 184 F.2d 952, 954 (10th Cir.1950) (“Congress has the power to enact legislation for the protection, preservation and regulation of [national banks]” (citing Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Nat’l Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29 , 1 Otto 29 , 23 L.Ed. 196 (1875); M’Culloch, 17 U.S. 316 , 4 Wheat. 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 ; Doherty v. United States, 94 F.2d 495, 497 (8th Cir.1938); Weir v. United States, 92 F.2d 634, 636 (7th Cir.1937))).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel M. Edgar
(3×)
See Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 60 , 118 S.Ct. 469 , 139 L.Ed.2d 352 (1997) (citing Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lipscomb
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee
(6×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927).
cited
Cited "see"
Salinas v. United States
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lloyd Myles Rucker
See generally Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258-59 (1927); Toles v. United States, 308 F.2d 590, 594 (9th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836 (1963). 5 Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, and we have jurisdiction of the appeal on all counts under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 and 18 U.S.C. section 3742 (a). 6 II.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth Edward Dunham
(3×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); see also Toles v. United States, 308 F.2d 590, 594 (9th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836 , 84 S.Ct. 79 , 11 L.Ed.2d 66 (1963). *46 Dunham’s argument that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to conduct proceedings regarding the robbery of a federally insured state bank has no arguable basis in law or in fact and is thus frivolous.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter Sabatino
(3×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); Hiatt v. United States, 4 F.2d 374, 377 (7 Cir. 1924), cert. denied, 268 U.S. 704 , 45 S.Ct. 638 , 69 L.Ed. 1167 (1925).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Brooks
(3×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 ; Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 , 41 S.Ct. 243 , 65 L.Ed. 577 ; Langer v. United States, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 817 ; United States v, Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 56 S.Ct. 312 , 80 L.Ed. 477 , 102 A. L.R. 914; Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 , 56 S.Ct. 466 , 80 L.Ed. 688 ; Oklahoma City v. Sanders, 10 Cir., 94 F.2d 323 , 115 A.L.R. 363 ; Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic Trust Co., D.C., 17 F.Supp. 263 .
examined
Cited "see"
In re Naka's License
(3×)
See Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 .” The foregoing cases hold that foreigners cannot be discriminated against in conducting laundries or prevented from engaging in useful occupations under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the courts will not disturb a classification made in regard to a business that is harmful and vicious in itself, even if it does affect foreigners, as a class under the Fourteenth Amendment.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Corrigan Clay
See also Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154 (1971) (“[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so.” (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927))).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Embrey v. United States
(3×)
See, e.g., Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); Clark v. United States, 184 F.2d 952, 953-54 (10th Cir.1950). 3 Affirmed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Embrey v. United States
See, e.g., Westfall v. -9- United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258 (1927); Clark v. United States, 184 F.2d 952, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1950). 3 Affirmed.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shanti Banks-Giombetti
(3×)
See United States v. Jones, 983 F.2d 1425 , 1428 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329-30 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Dunham, 995 F.2d 45 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990); see also Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258-59 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927) (Congress may punish offenses against federally-regulated banks); Hugi v. United States, 164 F.3d 378, 380-81 (7th Cir.1999) (government’s burden to prove interstate commerce nexus for federal crimes is waived by valid guilty plea).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Banks-Giombetti
See United States v. Jones, 938 F.2d 1425 , 1428 & n.6 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329-30 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Dunham, 995 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258-59 (1927) (Congress may punish offenses against federally-regulated banks); Hugi v. United States, 164 F.3d 378, 380-81 (7th Cir. 1999) (government’s burden to prove interstate commerce nexus for federal crimes is waived by valid guilty plea).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr.
(3×)
See, e.g., Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1957) (defrauding a state bank that is voluntarily a member of the Federal Reserve System may be made a federal offense because of that membership); United States v. Dunham, 995 F.2d 45 (5th Cir.1993) (robbery of federally insured state bank); United States v. Hand, 497 F.2d 929, 934-5 (5th Cir.1974), adhered to en banc, 516 F.2d 472, 477 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 953 , 96 S.Ct. 1427 , 47 L.Ed.2d 359 (1976) (status as federally chartered institution supports federal jurisdiction); United States v. F…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lopez
See, e.g., Westfall v. United States, 47 S.Ct. 629 (1957) (defrauding a state bank that is voluntarily a member of the Federal Reserve System may be made a federal offense because of that membership); United States v. Dunham, 995 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1993) (robbery of federally insured state bank); United States v. Hand, 497 F.2d 929, 934-5 (5th Cir. 1974), adhered to en banc, 516 F.2d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 96 S.Ct. 1427 (1976) (status as federally chartered institution supports federal jurisdiction); United States v. Fitzpatrick, 581 F.2d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir. 1978) (federal cha…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vignola
(3×)
See, e. g., Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256 , 47 S.Ct. 629 , 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927), in which the officer of a state bank which was a member of the Federal Reserve System challenged his federal conviction for conspiring to misapply the funds of his bank.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Baldwin v. State
See also, Westfall v United States, 274 U. S. 256 , 47 Supreme Court Reporter 62D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Westfall
v.
United States
v.
United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1927.
Mr. D. S. Face, with whom Mr. Harry D. Jewell was\ on the brief
Holmes.
for Westfall.
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (3)
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Westfall was convicted under two indictments, the first of which charged him with aiding and procuring tfie branch manager of a State bank which was a member of the Federal Reserve System to misapply the funds of the bank. The second indictment charged a conspiracy to misapply the funds of the bank between the same and other parties. Both were based upon: the issuing a fraudulent certificate of deposit for ten thousand dollars and the paying the same from the funds of the bank. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certifies this[*258] question: “Is the provision of section 9, chapter 6, of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913 [38 Stat. 259, 260,] as amended June 21, 1917 [c. 32, §3; 40 Stat. 232,] and July 1, 1922 constitutional in so far as it provides that 'such banks and the officers, agents and employees thereof shall also be subject to the provisions of and the penalties prescribed by Section 5209 of the Revised Statutes?’ ” The amendment of July 1, 1922, referred to is, we presume, c. 274; 42 Stat. 821. It has no immediate bearing upon the question propounded arid as it is not relied upon in argument we shall leave it on one side.
It is not disputed that Rev. Stat. §5209, if applicable, punishes the bank manager, and those who aided and abetted him in his crime. Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, 447. The argument is that Congress has no power to punish offences against the property rights of State banks. It is said that the statute is so broad that-it covers such offences when they could not result in any loss to the Federal Reserve Banks, and it is suggested that if upheld the Act will invalidate similar statutes of the States. This argument is well answered by Hiatt v. United States, 4 F. (2d) 374, 377. Certiorari denied. 268 U. S. 704. Of course an act may be criminal under the laws of both jurisdictions. United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 382. And if a state bank chooses to come into the System created by the United States, the United States may punish acts injurious to the System, although doné to a corporation that the State also is entitled to protect. The general proposition is too plain to need more than statement. That there is such a System and that the Reserve Banks are interested in the solvency and financial condition of the members also is too obvious to require a repetition of the careful analysis presented by the Solicitor General. The only suggestion that may deserve a word is that the statute applies indifferently[*259] whether there is a loss to the Reserve Banks or not. But every fraud like the one before us weakens the member bank and therefore weakens the System. Moreover, when it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so. It may punish the forgery and utterance of spurious interstate bills of lading in order to protect the genuine commerce. United States v. Ferger, 250 U. S. 199. See further, Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20, 26. That principle is settled. Finally, Congress may employ state corporations with their consent as instrumentalities of the United States, Clallam County v. United States, 263 U. S. 341, and may make frauds that impair their efficiency crimes. United States, v. Walter, 263 U. S. 15. We answer the question: Yes.