38 U.S.C. § 715
Congressional testimony by employees: treatment as official duty
Prior sections 715 and 716 were renumbered sections 1915 and 1916 of this title, respectively.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1941–1973 · leading case: Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949).
Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949). “38 U.S.C. § 715 , Conspiracy to falsify pension claims.”
Van Horne v. Hines, 122 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1941). “In 1939 appellant was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under Section *208 15 of the Economy Act, 38 US.C.A. § 715, for submitting a false affidavit in connection with his claim for compensation.”
United States v. Quirk, 167 F. Supp. 462 (E.D. Pa. 1958). “Motion In Arrest of Judgment The defendant challenges this count of the indictment upon the ground that it should have been drawn under 38 U.S.C.A. § 715 2 , a later and, purportedly, a more specific statute, which defendant urges was intended by Congress to proscribe the acts…”
United States v. Aderman, 191 F.2d 980 (7th Cir. 1951). “Appellant contends that the action was wrongly prosecuted under the False Claims Act and that the offense, if any, *984 should have been prosecuted under 38 U.S. C.A. § 715 which imposes penalties for making or conspiring to make false statements concerning claims arising under…”
United States v. John Joseph Quirk, II, 266 F.2d 26 (3rd Cir. 1959). “” *27 We agree with Judge Kraft in the district court that where the appellant’s conduct was wilful, as was here shown, the government had the right to proceed under Section 1001 and assume the burden of establishing wilfulness rather than to bring an indictment under the more…”
Charles David Salyers (Ellen S. Salyers, Substituted as in the Place of Charles David Salyers, Deceased) v. United States, 326 F.2d 623 (5th Cir. 1964). “1009 (1940), now 38 U.S. C.A. § 715. The check which he enclosed to cover the additional premium was cashed and the Veterans Administration acknowledged receipt of the check.”
United States v. Clearfield, 358 F. Supp. 564 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “There Judge Kraft held that it was proper to charge the defendant with a violation of § 1001 rather than 38 U.S.C. § 715 , a lesser and more specific offense which he had violated by the same conduct, because willfulness was an element of the more serious charge and the…”
United States v. Simon, 186 F. Supp. 223 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). “These alleged falsifications are charged to be violations of 38 U.S.C. § 715 (1952 Edition) . 1 Counts 36 through 70 of the indictment charge that the defendants made and presented to the Veterans Administration the same certificates referred to in the first 35 counts which were…”
Barbara Karrell v. United States, 247 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1957). “” The foregoing is identical with 38 U.S.C.A. § 715 , as it appears today except the code lists sections of the title rather than saying “under this title.”
Di Silvestro v. United States Vets. Admin., 151 F. Supp. 337 (E.D.N.Y 1957). “Such decision was that the claimant had forfeited his rights, claims and benefits to disability payments as a World War II veteran, pursuant to the provisions of the applicable statute found in Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 715 . The reconsideration (which was by a board completely…”
Lewis v. Wainscott, 268 P.2d 835 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954). “8, 11; 38 U.S.C. § 715 ). Section 15 reads as follows: “See.”
Di Silvestro v. United States Vets.' Admin., 228 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1956). “This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint in an action which sought judicial review of a decision of the Veterans’ Administration, forfeiting under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 715 , a compensation award previously made to the plaintiff.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.