United States v. Dees’s Empirical Analysis
34 F.3d 838 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably United States v. Sarno (1995), United States v. Shipsey (2004)
42 federal appellate ·
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · California v. ARC America Corp. · Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · Hughey 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n general, [a] defendant is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on his theory of defense, provided that it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“more than adequately reflect[ed] the definition of intent to defraud ... under [§ 1341].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'It is not reversible error[, however], to reject a defendant's proposed instruction on his theory of the case if other instructions, in their entirety, adequately cover that defense theory.'”
3 later decisions 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.