Huff v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.2d 760 · 1962
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), United States v. Kelly (1965)
50 federal appellate · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Fasulo v. United States · Perez v. United States · Panci v. United States · Handford v. United States · United States v. Gavagan
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no requirement that the victim be actually deceived, but only that there be a scheme to defraud, and that the telephone be used as a step in the execution of the scheme. * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“COUNT I 1. Beginning on or about May 15, 1969, and continuing thereafter to on or about June 9, 1969, within the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, Edmund Robbins Jackson, also known as Ed Lee Robbins, defendant, did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations. 2. Such scheme and artifice, so devised and intended to be devised by the defendant, was in substance as follows: A. On or about May 23, 1969, the defendant would go to the Texas Bank and Trust Company of Dallas, Dallas, Texas, and would take with him certain municipal bonds; B. The defendant would meet with Bob Houston, Assistant Vice-President and Commercial Loan Officer, New Accounts Department, Texas Bank and Trust Company of Dallas and would represent himself to be Ed Lee Robbins; C. The defendant would apply to open a checking account with such bank; D. He would present to Bob Houston and Texas Bank and Trust Company of Dallas stolen municipal bonds each payable to the bearer, each with the maturity date of May 15, 1969, and worth the aggregate sum of $65,000.00; to wit: * * * [list of bonds omitted]. E. He would falsely an fraudulently pretend and represent to Bob Houston and Texas Bank and Trust Company of Dallas that he was the true owner of such bonds, when as the defendant well knew, such bonds had been stolen; F. He would falsely and fraudulently pretend and represent to Bob Houston and Texas Bank ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud . . . transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire . . . communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any . . . signals . . . or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
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.