United States v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 492 · 1975
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably McNally v. United States (1987), Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York (2010)
48 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 15 U.S.C. § 375 (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009) · 15 U.S.C. § 376 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · United States v. Maze · United States v. Johnson · Durland v. United States · Kann v. United States
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the same conduct violates overlapping statutes, the prosecutor can elect to charge the defendant under either.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In Maze, Kann, and the relevant charges at issue in Parr, the mailings relied on by the government were made by individuals other than the defendants after the fraudulent schemes were completed. The defendants had cashed fraudulently obtained checks (Kann ) or had used credit cards for improper purposes (Parr ) or had used stolen credit cards (Maze ) to obtain cash, merchandise or services. The banks or the businesses which provided the services then used the mails to settle their accounts with the credit card owners or the banks on which the checks were drawn. The Court held that in these circumstances the mailings were not sufficiently related to the defendants' schemes to support a finding that the mails were used 'for the purpose of executing (the) scheme to defraud' within the terms of § 1341. Maze, 414 U.S. at 402, 94 S.Ct. 645; Parr, 363 U.S. at 370, 80 S.Ct. 1171; Kann, 323 U.S. at 94, 65 S.Ct. 148 Here, the government does not base any part of its case on the use of the mails to clear the purchasers' checks after Brewer cashed them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'The (Jenkins Act) was enacted for three major reasons: '(1) The large and increasing loss of revenue to the States caused by the evasion of sales and use taxes on cigarettes shipped in interstate commerce to consumers; '(2) The discrimination caused by this evasion against sellers of cigarettes in States having a higher tax than the tax of the seller States; and '(3) The fact that this evasion was accomplished through the use of the United States mail.' S.Rep. No. 1147, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. and Admin.News 2883 (1955), quoting from the report of the Committee on Ways and Means.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.