United States v. Menon’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 550 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (1996), United States v. Wise (2008)
42 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 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 16 U.S.C. § 3372 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 37 (§ 60021 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 542 · 18 U.S.C. § 545
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Frady · Texas v. Brown · Sedillo v. United States · Horton v. California
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the intent to defraud element . . . should be construed as meaning intent to avoid and defeat the United States customs laws, . . . rather than the narrower construction `intent to deprive the United States of revenue'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has allowed officers to seize incriminating evidence in plain view during the course of a lawful search because such a seizure “does not involve an intrusion on privacy. If the interest in privacy has been invaded, the violation must have occurred before the object came into plain view.” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 141 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2310 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). In Horton , the Supreme Court set forth three requirements for valid seizures of evidence in plain view. First, the officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in “arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed.” Id. at 136 , 110 S.Ct. at 2308 . Second, the incriminating character of the evidence must be “immediately apparent.” Id. Third, the officer must have “a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“At a minimum, we think that the legislative history makes the meaning of “defraud the United States” in § 545 ambiguous given that ... the meaning of defraud varies from statute to statute. As the [Supreme] Court did in McNally [v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 , 107 S.Ct. 2875 , 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987) ], we rely on the rule of lenity to hold that because the meaning of defraud is ambiguous in the context of § 545, that section requires an intent to cause a deprivation of money or property.”
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.