United States v. Blitz’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.3d 1002 · 1998
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably United States v. Treadwell (2010), United States v. Hishaw (2000)
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Watts · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Attwood v. Singletary · Berkery v. Commissioner
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s a knowing participant in a scheme to defraud Nortay customers, Hall is hable for his “co-schemers’ use of the mails or wires.” Lothian, 976 F.2d at 1263 . And the evidence at trial clearly estabhshed that Hah knowingly participated in Nortay’s fraudulent activity with intent to defraud Nortay’s customers. His own hes were legion. ... That evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Hall knowingly participated in Nortay’s fraudulent scheme and should, therefore, be held responsible for fraud perpetrated by his co-schemers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.