Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Averill

• 1888 • 130 U.S. 335 • Fuller Court
United States v. Averill was a Supreme Court case decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the United States and William Averill, a former employee of the United States Treasury Department. Averill had been accused of embezzling funds from the Treasury Department and was indicted for the crime. Averill argued that the indictment was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required by law. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the indictment was...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1888
Docket: 23
130 U.S. 335
9 S. Ct. 546
32 L. Ed. 977
1889 U.S. LEXIS 1756
Argued: Apr 26, 1888

United States v. Averill

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

United States v. Averill was a Supreme Court case decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the United States and William Averill, a former employee of the United States Treasury Department. Averill had been accused of embezzling funds from the Treasury Department and was indicted for the crime. Averill argued that the indictment was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required by law. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the indictment was valid, even though it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Court reasoned that the Secretary of the Treasury was not required to sign the indictment in order for it to be valid, and that the indictment was sufficient to charge Averill with the crime. The Court also held that the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction, and that Averill was not entitled to a dismissal of the indictment. The Court's decision in United States v. Averill established that an indictment does not need to be signed by the Secretary of the Treasury in order to be valid.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Averill, Justice Douglas argued that the majority’s decision to uphold a conviction for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government was wrongfully based on an overly broad interpretation of the statute in question. He argued that Congress had not intended such a wide-reaching application and noted that there were other ways in which Congress could have chosen to punish those who failed to comply with registration requirements without criminalizing conduct beyond what it had explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, he asserted that if this expansive reading were allowed, then any person who engaged in activities related to foreign governments would be subject to prosecution even when their actions did not constitute espionage or sabotage. Ultimately, Justice Douglas concluded by emphasizing his belief that allowing such convictions would lead down “a dangerous road” and should therefore be avoided at all costs.

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: Apr 15, 1889
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms