United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 514 (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Bowie · United States v. Crowder · United States v. Douglas · 765 F. Supp. 1112 - United States v. Edmonds · 245 F. Supp. 2d 24 - United States v. Howard
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to support a conviction for bank fraud, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brown “knowingly execute[d], or attempted] to execute, a scheme or artifice — (1) to defraud a financial institution; or (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (emphasis added). Similarly, to support a conviction for fictitious obligation, the Government had to prove Mr. Brown’s “intent to defraud,” as well as his knowledge that the instruction was fictitious and his intent to represent the instruction as an “actual” security issued under the authority of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 514 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.