United States v. Davey’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably Paternostro v. United States (1962), United States v. Chevoor (1975)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on United States v. Gilliland · McGrath v. Kristensen · 131 F. Supp. 190 - United States v. Stark · United States v. Levin · United States v. Moore
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.
““If the statute is to be construed as contended for here by the United States, the results would be far-reaching. The age-old conception of the crime of perjury would be gone. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1621 . Any person who failed to tell the truth to the myriad of government investigators and representatives about any matter, regardless of how trivial, whether civil or criminal, which was within the jurisdiction of a department ■or agency of the United States, would be guilty of a crime punishable with greater severity than that of perjury.” ****** “An inquiry might be made of .any citizen concerning criminal ■cases of a minor nature, or even of civil matters of little consequence, .and if he wilfully falsified his statements, it would be a violation of this .statute. It is inconceivable that Con.gress had any such intent when this portion of the statute was enacted. .A literal construction of a statute is not to be resorted to when it •would bring about absurd conse•quences, or flagrant injustices, or produce results not intended by Congress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But can it be said that when an accused person, a potential defendant, a suspect, grants an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation an interview and, in reply to an incriminating question, knowingly makes a negative answer, when truth and morality, but not the law, requires an affirmative reply, such answer perverts the authorized function of the Bureau? Is the authorized function of the Bureau to extract from the suspect only the truth, or, in view of the Fifth Amendment proscribing compulsory self-incrimination, to hear and record only such statement as the accused desires freely and voluntarily to make ?””
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.