Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 F.2d 489 - Bramblett v. United States

Bramblett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

231 F.2d 489 · 1956

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Toussie v. United States (1970), Monroe v. United States (1956)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

1001956196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 286 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282

Relies on Braverman v. United States · Hyde v. United States · United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. · Fiswick v. United States · United States v. Gilliland

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

  1. ““As we understand it the indictment does not merely charge the making of a false statement. To be sure, the statute would cover such a charge . . . But this indictment specifies a violation of a different portion of the statute. It alleges that defendant did ‘falsify by a scheme a material fact’ by wilfully and knowingly continuing the incorrect designation in effect into periods less than three years before the date of the indictment A continuing crime of falsification by a scheme is thus charged and proved, and the period of limitations did not begin to run until the scheme ended.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * The portion of the statute upon which the indictment rests we think does reveal a Congressional intent to reach a pattern of conduct rather than to penalize a series of acts which manifest the pattern. In construing a criminal statute doubts should be resolved in favor of a construction that avoids subjecting an offender to multiple convictions by reason of a single unified pattern of behavior even though the behavior continues over a period of time.” 2”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]t is clear that Bramblett was engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§ 286 or 371 (1952); that the conspiracy was begun by his false designation of Mrs. Swanson as his clerk; and that an overt act evidencing the conspiracy occurred each time she accepted a salary check.”
    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.