United States v. Halper’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 422 · 1978
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Bagaric (1983), United States v. Barnes (1979)
53 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United States v. Calandra · Lawn v. United States · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Drew v. United States · Rodriguez 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Two or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment ... in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged ... are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court may order two or more indictments ... to be tried together if the offenses ... could have been joined in a single indictment.”
5 later decisions 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.