United States v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 664 · 1978
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably State v. Warner (1990), United States v. Marquardt (1986)
35 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Ohio v. Gallagher · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Pierson v. Ray · Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] reckless disregard by a bank official of his bank's interest is sufficient to establish the requisite intent to defraud.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The crime charged in this case is a serious crime which requires proof of specific intent before the defendant can be convicted. Specific intent, as the term implies, means more than the general intent to commit the act. To establish specific intent the government must prove that the defendant knowingly did an act which the law forbids, purposely intending to violate the law. Such intent may be determined from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. An act or a failure to act is “knowingly” done, if done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Neither the phrase ‘willfully misapplies’ within § 656, nor its counterpart, ‘intent to injure and defraud,’ read into § 656 by the courts ... necessarily connotes an evil desire or a motive of causing injury. Deliberate misapplication of bank funds suffices, even if — as is surely the norm— the actor is motivated purely by his own self-interes.t or that of another and wishes no harm to anyone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.