United States v. Bieganowski’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.3d 264 · 2002
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Kinney v. Weaver (2004), Lambert v. Blackwell (2004)
86 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Glasser v. United States · Barker v. Wingo · Neder v. United States · Washington v. Texas · United States v. Cotton
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A separate crime is charged against one or more of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each count, and the evidence pertaining to it, should be considered separately. Also, the case of each defendant should be considered separately and individually. The fact that you may find one or more of the accused guilty or not guilty of any of the crimes charged should not control your verdict as to any other crime or any other defendant. You must give separate consideration to the evidence as to each defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the facts alleged in the indictment warrant an inference of materiality, the indictment is not fatally insufficient for its failure to allege materiality in haec verba.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“; and (3) testimony from the pharmaceutical representatives themselves, who characterized the split contracts as clinical study agreements. Based on this evidence alone, the Government presented sufficient evidence of Butler's intent to defraud HSC such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 49 Next, Butler maintains there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he willfully: (1) exported yersinia pestis to Tanzania without a license; (2) described in a misleading manner the yersinia pestis as”
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.