United States v. Cavin’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1299 · 1994
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably United States v. Edwards (1995), United States v. Kellington (2000)
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] lawyer accused of participating in his client's fraud is entitled to present evidence of his professional, including ethical, responsibilities, and the manner in which they influenced him. Exclusion of such evidence prevents the lawyer from effectively presenting his defense”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The district court charged the jury that it “may” acquit the defendants if it found that they acted in good faith. A good faith defense is the “affirmative converse of the government’s burden of proving ... intent to commit a crime.” Acquittal is not optional upon a finding of good faith, as the court erroneously charged; it is mandatory because a finding of good faith precludes a finding of fraudulent intent. The implication of the charge as given was that the jury could convict without finding fraudulent intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the evidence and all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict and must affirm if a rational jury could have found that the government proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.