Lewin v. Blumenthal’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 268 · 1979
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Bryan v. United States (1998), Perri v. Department of Treasury (1981)
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 923
Relies on Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Intercounty Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commision · Western Waterproofing Co. v. Marshall · St. Louis & S. F. R. 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'prove that the petitioner knew of his legal obligation and purposefully disregarded or was plainly indifferent to the recordkeeping requirements.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the applicant has not willfully violated any of the provisions of this chapter [Chapter 44, Title 18, U.S.C.] or regulations [ 27 C.F.R. § 478.1 et seq.] issued thereunder.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 923 (g) and 27 C.F.R. §§ 178.124 & 178.-125 the Bureau must establish that the licensee “willfully” failed to maintain the proper records. Petitioner argues that the Bureau has not proven willfulness, and that therefore summary judgment should not be granted. In a civil context such as this, the definition of “willfully” is dependent upon the specific statutes involved. See Irey v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 519 F.2d 1200, 1207 (3d Cir. 1974); Rich , 383 F.Supp. [797] at 800. For the violations alleged here, the Bureau must prove that the petitioner knew of his legal obligation and purposefully disregarded or was plainly indifferent to the recordkeeping requirements. See Rich, 383 F.Supp. 800 -01; McLemore v. United States Treasury Dep’t, 317 F.Supp. 1077, 1079 (N.D.Fla.1970); Mayesh, 58 F.R.D. [537] at 540. [Cf. Rex Wine Corp. v. Dunigan, 224 F.2d 93, 95 (2d Cir. 1955).] There is no requirement of bad purpose as might be imposed were the Court faced with determining the definition of willfulness in a criminal prosecution. Cf. Intercounty Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 522 F.2d 777, 779-80 (4th Cir. 1975). Lewin v. Blumenthal, supra, 590 F.2d at 269 , quoting Shyda v. Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, supra, 488 F.Supp. at 415.”
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.