United States v. Boulet’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 1165 · 1978
Citation profile
32 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Carter (1984), United States v. Hiett (1978)
32 federal appellate ·
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 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Relies on Holland v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Wingo v. Wedding · Mahan v. Howell · United States v. Louisiana
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We, therefore, review the record ‘bearing constantly in mind the difficulties that arise when circumstantial evidence as to guilt is the chief weapon of a method that is itself only an approximation.’ Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 129 , 75 S.Ct. 127, 132 , 99 L.Ed. 150 . The government must prove a full and adequate investigation in a bank-deposits case just as it must in a net-worth case. Holland v. United States, supra. ‘Such investigation must establish a guarantee of essential accuracy in the circumstantial proof at trial as an element of the government’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....’ United States v. Slutsky, supra, 487 F.2d [832] at 840 [ (2nd Cir.1973) ].” ( 577 F.2d at 1168 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purification.” It results in a figure called ñet taxable bank deposits. The government agent then adds the amount of expenditures made in cash, for example, in this case, cash the doctor received from fees, did not deposit, but gave to his wife to buy groceries. The total of this amount and net taxable bank deposits is deemed to equal gross income. This is in turn reduced by the applicable deductions and exemptions. The figure arrived at is considered to be”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he prosecution was not required to prove the opening cash figure with mathematical exactitude”
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.