United States v. Hanousek’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.3d 1116 · 1999
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Lemay (2001), Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (2001)
28 federal appellate · 4 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. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1319 · 33 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Russello v. United States · Richards v. United States · Staples v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[particular phrases must be construed in light of the overall purpose and structure of the whole statutory scheme. When we look to the plain language of a statute in order to interpret its meaning, we do more than view words or subsections in isolation. We derive meaning from context, and this requires reading the relevant statutory provisions as a whole.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“endangering, " "we `start with the assumption that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.' " Id. (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 , 21 (1983)) (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 , 9 (1962)). 31 The ordinary meaning of the term "endanger”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
1 later decision 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.