United States v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.3d 963 · 2007
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024
5 federal appellate ·
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 286 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 25 U.S.C. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 25 U.S.C. § 450F (§ 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Stinson v. United States · United States v. Aramony · United States v. Kimbrew · United States v. Bennett · United States v. Berger
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies in any case in which the defendant represented that the defendant was acting to obtain a benefit on behalf of a charitable, religious, or political organization, or a government agency (regardless of whether the defendant actually was associated with the organization or government agency) when, in fact, the defendant intended to divert all or part of that benefit (e.g., for the defendant’s personal gain). Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies, for example, to the following: (i) A defendant who solicited contributions for a non-existent famine relief organization. (ii) A defendant who solicited donations from church members by falsely claiming to be a fundraiser for a religiously affiliated school. (iii) A defendant, chief of a local fire department, who conducted a public fundraiser representing that the purpose of th[e] fundraiser was to procure sufficient funds for a new fire engine when, in fact, the defendant intended to divert some of the funds for the defendant’s personal benefit.”
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.