United States v. Scharton’s Empirical Analysis
285 U.S. 518 · 1932
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 33 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 343 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Morissette v. United States (1952), Helvering v. Mitchell (1938)
104 federal appellate · 33 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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
Relies on United States v. William Rabinowich · Hammerschmidt v. United States · Moses Haas v. William Henkel · United States v. Hirsch
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 343 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the principle that criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose,'....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The running of any existing statute of limitations applicable to any offense against the laws of the United States (1) involving defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States or any agency thereof whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner, or (2) committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, can-celation or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the present war, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency * * * shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities in the present war * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There are, however, numerous statutes expressly making intent to defraud an element of a specified offense against the revenue laws. Under these, an indictment failing to aver that intent would be defective; but under section HH(b) [predecessor of § 7201] such an averment would be surplusage, for it would be sufficient to plead and prove a willful attempt to evade or defeat.” (Bracketed material and emphasis added.)”
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.