United States v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.3d 273 · 2009
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Mudekunye (2011), United States v. McCann (2010)
14 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 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Hasting · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · United States v. Bell
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a primary method of judging the seriousness of an offense is by comparing it to other crimes, that does not mean that a mechanical test based upon the guidelines must be used to label an offense “serious” or “not serious.” Rather, the Speedy Trial Act’s requirement that courts must consider “the seriousness of the offense” simply demands that the gravity of the crime be carefully considered as a factor in deciding whether to dismiss without prejudice. There are many crimes more serious than [the defendant’s] income tax evasion, as well as many less serious. The district court reasonably considered this factor and properly balanced it with the other factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who ... [wjillfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document ... shall be guilty of a felony....”
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.