United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.3d 476 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably United States v. White (2007), United States v. Farrow (1999)
15 federal appellate ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1010 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 42 U.S.C. § 1437A
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · United States v. Zannino · Berkery v. Commissioner · United States v. Yermian
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f an intended loss that the defendant was attempting to inflict can be determined, this figure will be used if it is greater than the actual loss.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Brown diverted or attempted to divert funds from the recipients contemplated by the application regulations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.... Judges are not expected to be mindreaders. Consequently, a litigant has an obligation to spell out its arguments squarely and distinctly, or else forever hold its peace.”
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.