Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 581 F.2d 50 - United States v. Demauro

United States v. Demauro’s Empirical Analysis

581 F.2d 50 · 1978

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Paccione (1991), United States v. Gold (1984)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

22019781980199020002010decided

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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on United States v. Calandra · Bronston v. United States · Juidice v. Vail · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Cities Service Co. v. United States

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “for the conduct of its supervisory employees who had either intentionally disregarded the law or had acted with plain indifference to its requirements.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) where legal advice of any kind is sought, (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation only where the agent is acting within the scope of employment. That, in turn, requires that the agent be performing acts of the kind which he is authorized to perform, and those acts must be motivated — at least in part — by an intent to benefit the corporation.”
    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.