United States v. George’s Empirical Analysis
386 F.3d 383 · 2004
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2010), Rodriguez v. Gonzales (2006)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1361 · 18 U.S.C. § 1542 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 228 (Child Support Recovery Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 894 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Spies v. United States · Cheek v. United States · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Staples v. United States · Cox v. State of Louisiana
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[wilfuly] and knowingly' " as used in the applicable federal statute, in order to determine the mens rea that applied to the crime. Id., at 388-89 . The court began its analysis with the recognition that "[d]ivining the meaning of '[wilfully]' in criminal statutory mens rea terms has long bedeviled American courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In George , the defendant had been convicted of making a false statement in a passport application. Id., at 385 . The issue on appeal required the court to construe the meaning of the term”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, there is the [heightened] standard, which requires that the defendant -know that he is violating an actual law. This standard applies "where the obscurity or complexity” of a criminal statute “may prevent individuals from realizing that seemingly innocent acts are, in fact, criminal,” and thus willfulness requires the defendant to haVe known that he was violating a specific law. Second, the Bryan standard simply requires that the defendant possess “knowledge of the conduct’s general unlawfulness.” Third, the baseline standard simply requires that the defendant know what he is doing, regardless of his awareness of the law, and it applies where conduct-by its nature .could not be participated in innocently.”
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.