Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 F.2d 488 - United States v. Fenwick

United States v. Fenwick’s Empirical Analysis

177 F.2d 488 · 1949

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 1992
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1992 · most notably Holland v. United States (1955), Opper v. United States (1954)

51 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

480194919501960197019801990decided

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 Forte v. United States · Gleckman v. United States · Pines v. United States · Bryan v. United States · United States v. Skidmore

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Remembering that the government has the burden of proof in a criminal case, that the burden never shifts to defendant, that circumstantial evidence must be of such character as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, it necessarily follows that, when the government relies upon circumstances of increased net worth and expenditures in excess of reported income to establish income tax evasion, the basic net worth must be established. The defendant is not compelled to take the witness stand; he is not compelled to make proof that he is innocent, but he must be proved guilty by the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, and where there is uncertainty as to whether all the assets of defendant are included in the government’s computation of net worth, it follows that its computations can not be relied on. Essential proof of no other assets is the cornerstone of the evidence of the government; that cornerstone being faulty, the whole edifice is so weakened as to be undependable as proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.” 27 (Emphasis added).”
    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.