MORGAN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1984)
  …housekeeping or administrative functions, the judicial proceedings themselves do not so qualify. Abrahams, supra, at 392-393; Erhardt, supra, at 175. See also Morgan v. United States, 114 U. S. App. D. C. 13, 16, 309 F. 2d 234, 237, cert. denied, 373 U. S. 917 (1962). We express no opinion on the validily of this line of cases.…
• Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1995)
  …t of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, petitioner argued that his convictions under §1001 were barred by the so-called “judicial function” exception. First suggested over 30 years ago in Morgan v. United States, 309 F. 2d 234 (CADC 1962), cert. denied, 373 U. S. 917 (1963), this doctrine limits the extent to which § 1001 reaches conduct occurring in the federal courts. Under the exception, only those misrepresentations falling within a court’s “administrative” or “housekeeping” functions can give rise to liabil…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Levis E. Lawson, Sr., 809 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1987)
  ….C. § 1001. United States v. Mayer, 775 F. 2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Abrahams, 604 F. 2d 386 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Erhardt, 381 F. 2d 173 (6th Cir.1967); Morgan v. United States, 309 F. 2d 234 (D.C.Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 917, 83 S.Ct. 1306, 10 L.Ed.2d 416 (1963). The criminal version of this exception maintains that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is not a proper basis for prosecuting a defendant who has made a false statement in a “judicial proceeding” as opposed to an “administrat…