Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 F.2d 385 - Sultan v. United States

Sultan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

249 F.2d 385 · 1957

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2005
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2005

14 federal appellate ·

70195719601970198019902000decided

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. § 152 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3284

Relies on Opper v. United States · Smith v. United States · United States v. Calderon · Lovely v. United States · Forte 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The crime is concealment of assets from the specified court officers or creditors, and the acts can be done before, as well as after bankruptcy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Indeed, it [ 18 U.S.C. § 3284 ] is but a legislative recognition of an obvious fact that concealment by its nature is an act which goes on until detected or its consequences are purged, its [concealment] purpose is not merely to remove or withdraw assets from the control of the Court, but to do that in such a way that the existence of the assets is not known or their withdrawal detected.” Sultan v. United States, 249 F.2d 385, 386 (5th Cir. 1957).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re May
  3. “nothing in either the Judge's words or the setting indicates that Saul's counsel or Saul was prejudicially placed in the hard position of challenging the Judge in the jury's presence. Hodges v. United States, supra.”
    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.