United States v. Silverman’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 106 · 1970
Citation profile
130 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force (1977), United States v. Seidman (1998)
130 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 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. § 80A · 18 U.S.C. § 2514 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 664 (Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) · 29 U.S.C. § 402 · 29 U.S.C. § 431
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Morissette v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Russell v. United States · Michelson 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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets (2) of a labor organization (3) of which (the defendant) is an officer, or by which he is employed.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Congress has] gone beyond the common law offense of larceny and the old statutory crime of embezzlement because ‘gaps or crevices have separated particular crimes of this general class and guilty men have escaped through the breaches,’ Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 , 271-72, 72 S.Ct. 240 , 254, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). But, as was there held, despite minor variations in language the common thread is that the defendant, at' some stage of the game, has taken another person’s property or caused it to be taken, knowing that the other person would not have wanted that to be done.... It is easy to understand how a union employee does this when he ‘unlawfully and willfully’ uses union funds in a manner that works to the personal benefit of himself or the payee and does not benefit the union, whether or not the union went through the form of authorization; the ‘union’ presumably would have objected if it had been able to speak freely.”
5 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.