United States v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 933 · 1995
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. O'Hagan (1997), Skilling v. United States (2010)
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Relies on United States v. Olano · Buckley v. Valeo · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Basic Inc. v. Levinson
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In United States v. Barber, 668 F.2d 778 , 784 n. 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 , 103 S.Ct. 66 , 74 L.Ed.2d 67 (1982), for example, [the Fourth Circuit] held that state officials owe a “fiduciary duty ... to the state and its citizens,” and that one who schemes to deprive citizens of “the honest and faithful performance of an official’s duties” violates section 1341. Accordingly, [the Court] affirmed the mail fraud conviction of the Commissioner of the West Virginia Beverage Control Commission, who had manipulated warehouse records and otherwise abused his position in order to obtain free liquor for himself and other officials. Id. at 781. Similarly, in [United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1979)], [the Court] found the mail fraud statute violated by the Governor of Maryland and several of his associates, who had manipulated the state’s horse racing industry. The Governor’s associates were guilty of failing to disclose their ownership of various racetracks during their dealings with the Maryland Racing Commission; the Governor, meanwhile, had failed to disclose his involvement with the race track owners to state legislators who were considering a bill benefitting the track owners. Mandel, 591 F.2d at 1355 . Other circuits likewise have held that schemes involving various types of dishonesty by public officials come within the ambit of the mail fraud statute because such schemes defraud citizens of them intangible rights to honest and impartial government”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhile the courts adopting the misappropriation theory incant that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a necessary element of the offense, in principle, if not in reality, these courts would be obliged to find liability in the case of simple theft by an employee, even where no fiduciary duty has been breached, for the raison d’etre of the misappropriation theory in fact is concern over ‘the unfairness inherent in trading on [stolen] information.’”
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.