United States v. Hubbell’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1006 · 18 U.S.C. § 1032 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621
Relies on Hamling v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · Callanan v. United States · Bronston v. United States · United States v. Harvey
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“suggestion that § 1001 punishes a 'pattern of conduct' is dictum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“many false statements and acts of concealment,”
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.