United States v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.2d 839 · 1979
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Patton v. Yount (1984), Bates v. United States (1997)
111 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 15 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. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 656 · 26 U.S.C. § 6103
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Katz v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Alderman v. United States · Sheppard v. Maxwell
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is sufficient that the defendant at least temporarily deprive[d] the bank of the possession, control or use of its funds.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For a violation of § 656 to be proved, the Government must show, in addition to the status of both the bank and the defendant, that the defendant acted willfully, that [she] misapplied [or embezzled] funds, ... belonging to or intrusted to the custody of the bank and that [she] did so with the intent to injure or defraud the bank.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Subparagraph (i) prohibits any interception through the use of a device linked in any way to the interstate or foreign network of wire communications.... Subparagraph (ii) prohibits any interception through the use of a device which transmits communications by radio or which interferes with the transmission of radio communications. As in the case of wire communications, Congress has plenary power under the commerce clause to regulate not only the use of radio devices, but also the use of devices that interfere with radio communications. Subparagraph (ii) is intended to be a complete prohibition against the use of such devices for the interception of oral communications.... Subparagraph (iii) prohibits any interception through the use of a device, if the device itself or any of its components has been sent through the mail or transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce. Subparagraph (iv) prohibits any interception that takes place on the premises of a business whose operations affect interstate or foreign commerce. The subparagraph also prohibits any interception, wherever it takes place, which obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information about such a business. ... Subparagraph (v) prohibits any interception that takes place in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or the territories or possessions of the United States. Since Congress has plenary power over these geographic areas, the prohibitions are complete. Taken together, subparagraphs (i) to (v) of subparagr”
2 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.