United States v. Ueber’s Empirical Analysis
299 F.2d 310 · 1962
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Bornstein (1976), Acme Process Equipment Co. v. United States (1965)
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on United States Marcus v. Hess · Oriel v. Russell · United States v. McNinch · Lalone v. United States · Smith 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intentional fraud and misrepresentation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These findings and conclusions are made pursuant to the remand of this cause to this Court by the Court of Appeals, and are to be considered with reference to all the findings of fact heretofore made by this Court. “The burden of proving fraud was on the Government and fraud must be proved by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. The evidence adduced at this trial in support of the fraud was not only clear, unequivocal and convincing but was such as to amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt—this latter, of course, being in excess of the requirement. “The foregoing has application to each of the findings heretofore made by me, including those as to the labor being indirect rather than direct; those as to knowledge of this by Ueber and by Ueber Company; those as to knowledge by Ueber and Ueber Company that the vouchers which they caused to be submitted for payment were false and fraudulent; and also the findings as to said vouchers that Ueber and Ueber Company caused them to be submitted with intent to defraud the government.””
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.