United States v. Mackay’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 489 · 1994
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Delgado (2012), United States v. Flores (1995)
55 federal appellate · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Griffin v. California · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco · Poland v. Arizona
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the offense involved receiving stolen property, and the defendant was a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the business of receiving and selling stolen property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exception to the mail fraud statute does not apply to the Defendants' conduct. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found Krenning guilty of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. B 16 Rushton argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had the requisite intent under both the conspiracy and substantive mail fraud counts. A conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires that the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that”
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.