United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 615 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Reynolds (2000), United States v. Peters (2005)
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 228 (Child Support Recovery Act of 1992) · 26 U.S.C. § 7202 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Cheek v. United States · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States · Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In light of the Committee Report, and the similarity between the CSRA and the tax statutes that criminalize willful failure to pay money, we conclude it is proper to rely on cases construing the intent element in those tax statutes when construing the CSRA's willfulness standard.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[c]riminalization of the willful failure to pay is not new to the criminal code; it appears frequently in the tax statutes”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The record provides ample support for the district court’s finding of willfulness. Appellant made numerous threats to quit his job as a pathologist and to live “like a monk.” This unilateral decision deprived Appellant of the means to satisfy his child support obligation. Thus, although Appellant lacks the funds to pay, it is due solely to his decision to take steps specifically calculated to eliminate his ability to do so. His situation is no different than if he had taken his money and given it away, spent it, or otherwise disposed of it: Appellant’s inability to pay is due to his own purposeful actions and therefore cannot constitute a defense to the charge. ... In light of his past threats to quit his job to avoid complying with the State Court’s orders and his repeatedly expressed view that he should not have to support his children because they were in his ex-wife’s custody, the district court was entitled to conclude that he left the medical field and took relatively low paying jobs with the specific purpose of making it impossible for him to pay child support. Appellant’s conduct easily qualifies as willful failure to pay as defined by the CSRA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.