United States v. D'Amato’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1249 · 1994
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Autuori (2000), United States v. Delgado (2012)
88 federal appellate · 4 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. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Dade County v. Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n · Dade County v. Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n · Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg · Durland 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]eceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, [the person] places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service.”
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.