Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 FSUPP2D 390 - United States v. Stein

United States v. Stein’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 6103 · 26 U.S.C. § 7212

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Graham v. Connor · Faretta v. California · Berger v. United States · County of Sacramento v. Lewis

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “All of the [present] KPMG Defendants ... say that KPMG’s refusal to pay their post-indictment legal fees has caused them to restrict the activities of their counsel, limited or precluded their attorneys' review of the documents produced by the government in discovery, prevented them from interviewing witnesses, caused them to refrain from retaining expert witnesses, and/or left them without information technology assistance necessary for dealing with the mountains of electronic discovery. The government has not contested these assertions. The Court therefore has no reason to doubt, and hence finds, that all of them have been forced to limit their defenses in the respects claimed for economic reasons and that they would not have been so constrained if KPMG paid their expenses subject only to the usual sort of administrative requirements typically imposed by corporate law departments on outside counsel fees. Id. at 418-19 (footnote omitted). Judge Kap-lan explained that even though many defendants had net assets ranging from $1 million to $5 million, their resources were inadequate “to defend this case as they would have defended it absent the government's actions.” Id. at 423 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the Thompson memorandum in conjunction with the government’s statements relating to payment of legal fees affected KPMG’s determination(s) with respect to the advancement of legal fees and other defense costs to present or former partners and employees .... In fact, KPMG is prepared to state that the Thompson memorandum substantially influenced KPMG’s decisions with respect to legal fees....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “more than 22 million pages of material,” and”
    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.