United States v. Pardo’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 1187 · 1994
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Starnes (2009), United States v. Sokolow (1996)
44 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Olano · Latimer v. Stainer · Ray v. United States · United States v. Hill · United States v. Georgiadis
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the position allows the defendant to commit a difficult-to-detect wrong; (2) the degree of authority which the position vests in the defendant vis-a-vis the object of the wrongful act; and (3) whether there has been reliance on the integrity of the person occupying the position.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Public or private trust" refers to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference). Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. For this adjustment to apply, the position of public or private trust must have contributed in some significant way to facilitating the commission or concealment of the offense (e.g., by making the detection of the offense or the defendant's responsibility for the offense more difficult). This adjustment, for example, applies in the case of an embezzlement of a client's funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive's fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination. This adjustment does not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk because such positions are not characterized by the above-described factors.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the defendant abused a position of public or private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense”
3 later decisions 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.