United States v. Chodor’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.2d 661 · 1973
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably United States v. Anderson (1976), United States v. Moore (1979)
43 federal appellate · 2 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. § 472 · 18 U.S.C. § 474
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Lustig v. United States · First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba · McKelvey v. United States · Wiener v. California
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he proper test to be applied is whether the fraudulent obligation bears such a likeness or resemblance to any of the genuine obligations or securities issued under the authority of the United States as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finally, appellant’s assertion that the trial court erred in failing to rule as a matter of law that the notes in question were not counterfeit because they were lacking ‘significant particular^],’ United States v. Moran, 470 F.2d 742 (1st Cir. 1972), to wit, two serial numbers and the Treasury Seal on their face, is also unavailing. The proper test for determining what constitutes a counterfeit obligation is, as stated in United States v. Lustig, 159 F.2d 798 , 802 (3d Cir. 1947), rev’d on other grounds, 338 U.S. 74 , 69 S.Ct. 1372 , 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1949), ‘whether the fraudulent obligation bears such a likeness or resemblance to any of the genuine obligations or securities issued under the authority of the United States as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest.’ Accord, United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827 , 829 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 , 95 (4th Cir. 1963). In light of the three minor deficiencies of the notes in question, the trial court was clearly correct in submitting to the jury the question of whether these notes were of sufficient quality to be considered counterfeit. Lastly, given our endorsement of this standard and the fact that the court charged the substance of the Lustig test, even assuming that appellant requested an instruction that if the notes lacked ‘any significant quality’ they could not be found to be cou”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever has in his possession or custody, except under authority from the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer, any obligation or other security made or executed, in whole or in part, after the similitude of any obligation or other security issued under the authority of the United States, with intent to sell or otherwise use the same ... [i]s guilty of a class B felony.”
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.