United States v. Steiner Plastics Manufacturing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
231 F.2d 149 (1956)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Grumman Aircraft Engineering (Grumman) contracted to manufacture jet planes for the United States Navy (the Navy). Steiner Plastics Manufacturing Co. (Steiner) (defendant) entered into a subcontract with Grumman to make cockpit canopies for the planes. Steiner’s contract with Grumman provided that the canopies would be subject to inspection by Grumman and the Navy. Production difficulties resulted in the accumulation of defective or incomplete canopies that could not pass inspection. Steiner devised a scheme to ship some of the defective or incomplete canopies without proper inspection. The approval stamps and serial numbers from canopies that had already been inspected and approved by Grumman and the Navy were switched and affixed to canopies that had not been inspected and approved. Steiner was indicted and convicted on multiple counts of violating the false-statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. On appeal, Steiner argued that the switching of approval stamps was not a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States and that the district court’s refusal to admit evidence showing that the canopies were defective or had been rejected prevented the government from establishing that Steiner had falsified or concealed a material fact.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lumbard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
