United States v. Christopher’s Empirical Analysis
142 F.3d 46 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2023
15 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on McNally v. United States · United States v. Kopp · Mendoza v. Brown · United States v. Sawyer · McEvoy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Heritage Travel, Inc.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“18 U.S.C. § 1341 , is broad enough to include a wide variety of deceptions intended to deprive another of money or property. . . . We see no reason to read into the statutes an invariable requirement that the person deceived be the same person deprived of the money or property by the fraud. If, for example, the role of a government regulator is to protect the monetary interests of others, a scheme to mislead the regulator in order to get at the protected funds will affect”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“after receiving their fraudulent medical licenses did the doctors obtain funds from consumers and medical insurers. Is the majority imposing some temporal requirement on the causal connection between the deception and the loss of property? Would it have mattered in this case if the doctors had only used their fraudulent licenses to obtain money from consumers and insurers immediately after receiving those licenses? Does the passage of time somehow mean conclusion that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the scheme urged by the McEvoy Travel plaintiff, the deception actually followed the loss. When we reasoned that no mail or wire fraud had occurred because “the only parties deceived — [the regulators] — were not deprived of money or property,” we were simply making the point that the deception must in fact cause the loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.