green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1950 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1950
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Prosperi
See Marzani v. United States, 335 U.S. 895 , 69 S.Ct. 299 , 93 L.Ed. 431 (1948), aff'g by an equally divided Court, 168 F.2d 133 (D.C.Cir.1948) (Suspension Act did not apply to false statements to the Civil Service Commission and the FBI in seeking federal employment); United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 , 52 S.Ct. 416 , 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932) (same, false swearing in the preparation of income tax returns); United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633 , 47 S.Ct. 219 , 71 L.Ed. 451 (1926) (same); United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201 , 46 S.Ct. 476 , 70 L.Ed. 904 (1926) (same). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John M. Poindexter
See Mayer, 775 F.2d at 1392 (Fairchild, concurring) ("virtually none of the significant decisions has really defined the [judicial function] exception [or] expounded a rationale," and there is no "compelling reason for extending the exception beyond the exact holdings" of prior cases). 132 Poindexter also argues that § 1001 should not apply to "private discussions between representatives of the political branches where, as here, no oath is administered and no verbatim transcript is maintained." In such circumstances, "proof literally becomes a matter of one person's word against another, even…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William H. White, Sr., United States of America v. Lester H. Finotti, Jr.
See Paternostro, 311 F.2d at 305 (distinguishing Marzani v. United States, 168 F.2d 133 (D.C.Cir.), aff'd, 335 U.S. 895 , 69 S.Ct. 299 , 93 L.Ed. 431 (1948), because the statements there were made to obtain or retain a government position); United States v. North, 708 F.Supp. 364, 369 (D.D.C.1988) (noting that this circuit has never adopted or rejected the doctrine but finding it inapplicable on the facts presented).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ehrlichman
See Marzani v. United States, 83 U.S. App.D.C. 78, 168 F.2d 133 , aff’d, 335 U. S. 895 , 69 S.Ct. 299 , 93 L.Ed. 431 (1948).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert A. Rodriguez v. Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force
See generally Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 , 76 S.Ct. 861 , 100 L.Ed. 1396 (1956). 55 I am aware of the fact that in the past removal of certain employees who have lied in response to questions such as those involved in this case has been found to "promote the efficiency of the service." See, e. g., United States v. Marzani, D.D.C., 71 F.Supp. 615 (1947), affirmed, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 78 , 168 F.2d 133 , affirmed, 335 U.S. 895 , 69 S.Ct. 299 , 93 L.Ed. 431 (1948).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. North
See also, Marzani v. United States, 168 F.2d 133, 137-138, 141-142 (D.C.Cir.), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 335 U.S. 895 , 69 S.Ct. 299 , 93 L.Ed. 431 (1948).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marzani
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 59.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 20, 1948.
Osmond K. Fraenkel and Allan R. Rosenberg argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner., Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Robert S. Erdahl and Irving S. Shapiro. Belford V. Lawson, Jr. filed a brief for the National Lawyers Guild, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 58 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.