Irwin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.2d 770 · 1964
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Halbert (1981), United States v. Hathaway (1986)
51 federal appellate · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Escobedo v. Illinois · Massiah v. United States · United States v. Cohen · Silverman v. United States · Ross 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ne who acts with reckless indifference as to whether a representation is true or false is chargeable as if he had knowledge of its falsity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At that time neither [of the defendants] had been indicted or arrested. The postal inspector was conducting an investigation to determine if appellants were engaging in an unlawful activity. The accusa-torial stage of the proceeding had not yet been reached. This being true, the eliciting of the evidence described without revealing to appellants the identity of the investigator or advising them of their right to counsel, and without appellants then having the aid of counsel, was not violative of their rights under the Sixth Amendment, as construed and applied in Escobedo or Massiah or any other Supreme Court decision. Nor were they thereby denied any rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, invoked in appellant’s supplemental brief.””
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.