United States v. Krogstad’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.2d 22 · 1978
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably United States v. Giovannetti (1990), United States v. Tyler (1985)
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · In re Disbarment of Levin · United States v. Mekjian · United States v. Giuliano · United States v. Catena
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cases are clear that one may cause another to commit a crime, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (b), or aid and abet the commission of a crime, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a), without being a conspirator with the principal offender. There need be no agreement, express or tacit, between the principal offender and the aider and abettor, and indeed the principal offender need not even be aware that he was aided and abetted by another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[w]illfulness' need not be expressly stated in [an] indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2.”
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.