United States v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 813 · 1974
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 1994 · most notably United States v. Martin (1980), United States v. Rose (1978)
61 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on United States v. Gilliland · United States v. Bramblett · Nelson v. County of Los Angeles · United States v. Beacon Brass Co. · Gideon v. Cochran
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rose did not explain what constitutes a ‘routine exercise of administrative responsibility.’ However, Bush , from which this factor was drawn, does pro vide some insight into the proper analysis. In Bush , the defendant had lied to IRS special agents who had inquired about possible kickbacks that he paid to a taxpayer under investigation. The Bush court observed that: Section 1001 has usually been held inapplicable to statements made to government agents acting in a purely “police” capacity, (citations omitted). Doubts as to whether false statements made to police agents of the federal government fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 are premised on a potential “investigative” exception to § 1001, based on its historical evolution as a statute seeking to prevent the administration of federal government programs from being subverted or frustrated by the false presentation of interested parties, (citations omitted). ****** Although the line between ‘administration’ and ‘investigation’ cannot be sharply drawn, the argument has been made that this statute was intended to apply only to federal government ‘administration’ and not intended to compel citizens to answer truthfully every questions put to them in in the course of a federal police or criminal investigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the line between “administration” and “investigation” cannot be sharply drawn, the argument has been made that this statute was intended to apply only to federal government “administration” and not intended to compel citizens to answer truthfully every question put to them in the course of a federal police or federal criminal investigation.”
2 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.