United States v. Shavin’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.2d 647 · 1961
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably United States v. Weiner (1978), United States v. George (1973)
77 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Sweet v. United States · De Moss v. United States · Weiss v. United States · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Bender
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(c) Nature and Contents. The indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. . . . Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The two necessary elements for the violation of `18 U.S. C.A. § 1341 are (1) the formation of a scheme with an intent to defraud, and (2) the use of the mails in furtherance of that scheme.' Lemon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 369 , 373. The indictment here definitely charges the defendant, as a practicing attorney, with a continuing scheme to defraud insurance companies by falsely representing the amount of the medical bills to insurance carriers against whom the defendant's cients had claims. It includes certain named companies. We are of the opinion that the indictment sufficiently charges the two necessary elements of the offense and by specifically describing the mailing, the gist of the offense, the defendant is protected from being placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The transcript of the evidence as a whole discloses that it was a close question as to whether or not the defendant [defendants] had the intent to defraud or acted in good faith.”
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.