United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold’s Empirical Analysis
184 F.3d 131 · 1999
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Schultz (2003), Monter v. Gonzales (2005)
14 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Neder v. United States · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Austin 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“introduces . . . into the commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false . . . statement”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“shall be forfeited to the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“under [appellant’s proposed but rejected materiality] test, liability would not attach for misstatements in cases where truthful answers would still have enabled the goods to enter the United States. Importers have incentives to lie for reasons not related to achieving actual entry of the goods — e.g., to reduce the duties payable .... The statutory purpose would thus be frustrated by the narrow reading suggested by appellant. We therefore hold that “a false statement is material ... if it has the potential significantly to affect the integrity or operation of the importation process as a whole .... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. United States v. Wu
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.