Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 F.2d 697 - Friedman v. United States

Friedman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

347 F.2d 697 · 1965

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
17
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably United States v. Peltier (1978), City of St. Paul v. Vaughn (1975)

59 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 17 states

5301965197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 2

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Abel v. United States · Hester v. United States · Wilson v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama

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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]bandonment is an ultimate fact or conclusion based generally upon a combination of act and intent. How did the person who was supposed to have abandoned the property act, that is, what did he do, and, second, what was his intention?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We think it well established that there was one overall scheme to defraud and that this overall scheme encompassed both the Minneapolis and St. Paul studios. It was not essential to a determination of guilt herein that Lowery should have been instrumental in each operation or in operation out of the St. Paul studios. While Lowery's activities could have been limited to the Minneapolis studio, the jury could well have found, as they undoubtedly did find, that he was aware of what was going on in the St. Paul studios also. In a somewhat similar situation, this court recently said in Koolish v. United States, 8 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 513 , 525, certiorari denied, [ 381 U.S. 951 ] 85 S.Ct. 1805 , [ 14 L.Ed.2d 724 ]: “ ‘We are fully satisfied from an examination of the tremendous record here that substantial evidence supports the jury finding that there was an overall conspiracy to defraud and to obtain money and property from the Kenny Foundation and its donors, that each of the appellants cooperated with the others and each knowingly joined in the conspiracy, and that use of the mails to defraud was established in furtherance of the overall objective. It is immaterial whether or not there were minor conspiracies or schemes inside the overall conspiracy to obtain money from the Kenny Foundation and its contributors through false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises and that some of the defendants participated in some of these inner or smaller schemes but not in a”
    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.