Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 F.2d 336 - Erwin v. United States

Erwin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

242 F.2d 336 · 1957

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably United States v. Halbert (1981), United States v. Runnels (1987)

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

80195719601970198019902000decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)

Relies on Lovely v. United States · United States v. Brandt · United States v. Buckner · Troy Cheair Smith v. United States of America, Evander Frierson Smith v. United States · Koven 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We do not consider this reversible error, in the instant case; but in other cases, according to circumstances or the language of the instructions, such language might well be suggestive and prejudicial; and it is good practice for a trial court not to refer to the possibilities of sentencing in his instructions.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[U]nder the statute ... it was immaterial whether the defendant obtained any money or not, since the mere devising of a scheme for obtaining money or property by fraud and the use of the mail for the purpose of executing such scheme constitutes a violation of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In my opinion it was prejudicial error for the District Judge to encourage a verdict of guilty by suggesting to the jury the probability of a light sentence.””
    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.