United States v. Neder’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.3d 1122 · 1999
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably McCoy v. United States (2001), United States v. Martinelli (2006)
21 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Neder v. United States · United States v. Gaudin · Griffin 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, the Supreme Court did not hold that omission of an element can never be harmless error unless uncontested. Indeed, the Supreme Court emphasized that the correct focus of harmless-error analysis is: “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?” Stated another way, the focus is whether “the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error” or “whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to [materiality].” Thus, whether Neder contested materiality may be considered but is not the pivotal concern. Instead, what the evidence showed regarding materiality is the touchstone. Indeed, as outlined in the following, more specific discussion relating to the counts at issue, the Government’s evidence of materiality for each of these bank, mail, and wire fraud counts is overwhelming.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] false or fraudulent statement, representation or promise can be material even if the decision maker did not actually rely on the statement or even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.”
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.