United States v. Bedore’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.2d 1109 · 1972
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably United States v. Davenport (1980), United States v. Rose (1978)
83 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)
Relies on United States v. Gilliland · United States v. Bramblett · Kahm v. United States · Nelson v. County of Los Angeles · Sims v. Gardner
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) it was not made in pursuit of a claim to a privilege or a claim against the government; (2) it was made in response to inquiries initiated by a federal agency or department; (3) it did not pervert the basic functions entrusted by law to the agency; (4) it was made in the context of an investigation rather than of a routine exercise of administrative responsibility; (5) it was made in a situation in which a truthful answer would have incriminated the declarant.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is evident that section 1001 was not intended to reach all false statements made to governmental agencies and departments, but only those false statements that might support fraudulent claims against the Government, or that might pervert or corrupt the authorized functions of those agencies to whom the statements were made. The statute was not intended to embrace oral unsworn statements, unrelated to any claim of the declarant to a privilege from the United States or a claim against the United States, given in response to inquiries initiated by a federal agency or department, except, perhaps where such a statement will substantially impair the basic functions entrusted by law to that agency.”
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.