Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jerome Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 01, 1943

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

39 entries 5 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Helvering Vs. Stuart US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1942
  2. United States Vs. Gradwell US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1917
  3. Hebert Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1926
  4. Douglas Vs. Willcuts US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1935
  5. United States Vs. Pelzer US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1941
  6. Jerome v. United
    Search
  7. States - 318 U.S. 101 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Jerome v. United
    Search
  8. States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943) Jerome v. United
    Search
  9. a). Compare with the decision below Hudspeth v. Melville
    Search
  10. Hudspeth v. Tornello
    Search
  11. of a federal statute should be dependent on state law. Examples under federal revenue acts are common. Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  12. law. That assumption is based on the fact that the application of federal legislation is nationwide ( United States v. Pelzer
    Search
  13. at times on the fact that the federal program would be impaired if state law were to control. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton
    Search
  14. which supports the general principle. Since there is no common law offense against the United States ( United States v. Hudson
    Search
  15. to federal prosecution though a state conviction based on the same acts has already been obtained. See United States v. Lanza
    Search
  16. is not devoid of meaning in such a setting ( cf. Deal v. United
    Search
  17. same clause, adopted by indirection in 1937 much of the fraud provision which it rejected in 1934. Cf. United States v. Patton
    Search
  18. omission of any such provision in this Act is a strong indication that it had no such purpose here. Cf. United States v. Coppersmith
    Search
  19. See United States v. Slutzky
    Search
  20. committed in or against national or insured banks or only such state offenses as affected those banks ( Hudspeth v. Melville
    Search
  21. See United States v. Northway
    Search
  22. which it does not define but which was a common law offense, it will be given its common law meaning. United States v. Palmer
    Search
  23. United States v. Smith
    Search
  24. Harrison v. United
    Search
  25. Bannon v. United
    Search
  26. Hence, we need not look elsewhere for the meaning of the term. Cf. Reagan v. United
    Search
  27. States, 157 U. S. 301 , 157 U. S. 303 . As stated in Adams v. McCann
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court Jerome v. United
    Search
  29. Hudspeth v. Melville
    Search
  30. See United States v. Lanza
    Search
  31. Deal v. United
    Search
  32. Cf. United States v. Patton
    Search
  33. Cf. United States v. Coppersmith
    Search
  34. Bannon v. United
    Search
  35. Cf. Reagan v. United
    Search
  36. Adams v. McCann
    Search
  37. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton
    Search
  38. United States v. Hudson
    Search
  39. United States v. Palmer
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales