United States v. Pollack’s Empirical Analysis
534 F.2d 964 · 1976
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 31 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm (1984), United States v. Tarantino (1988)
56 federal appellate · 31 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · Giglio v. United States · United States v. Marion · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Application of a strict rule in this area would inevitably produce some situations in which late disclosure would emasculate the effects of Brady or other situations in which premature disclosure would unnecessarily encourage those dangers that militate against extensive discovery in criminal cases, e.g. potential for manufacture of evidence or bribing of witnesses. Courts can do little more in determining the proper time for disclosure than balance in each case the potential dangers of early discovery against the need that Brady purports to serve of avoiding wrongful convictions.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“appellants were 'promoters of stock' ... then [they] stood in a fiduciary relation to stockholders which required appellants to disclose fully all known facts that might influence prospective stockholders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.