United States v. Weiler’s Empirical Analysis
385 F.2d 63 · 1967
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur (1973), United States v. Kenny (1972)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 15 U.S.C. § 901 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)
Relies on Stirone v. United States · Bryan v. United States · United Mine Workers of America v. Benedict Coal Corporation · Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. · United States v. Stirone
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, however, the applicant made a request to a Government agency and was required to make a representation which was material to the subject matter of his request. Certainly he cannot, at least as a matter of law, be relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation when the means of ascertaining the truthfulness of his statement were available. There is no suggestion that the appellant was not free to fill out the form at his leisure. He must be assumed to have been aware of his own criminal convictions, at least the more serious ones. [ 385 F.2d at 65 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“had been convicted by a state court of assault and battery in Philadelphia nearly twenty years earlier. Id. at 66. The government presented evidence that the defendant had lived in Philadelphia at the time of the conviction, plus a pre-trial statement by the defendant that he had previously been arrested by the Philadelphia police. The Third Circuit held that this evidence was insufficient to establish the prior conviction of the defendant. The court distinguished an earlier ruling finding sufficient the evidence of a prior conviction for a man with a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find that it was not sufficiently probative of `willfulness' to be admitted on that issue.”
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.