United States v. Salinas’s Empirical Analysis
601 F.2d 1279 · 1979
Citation profile
63 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably McCoy v. United States (2001), United States v. Harrelson (1985)
63 federal appellate ·
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 Hamling v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Bain Jr · Weatherford v. Bursey · Ohio v. Gallagher
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] constructive amendment of an indictment is considered to be reversible error per se if there has been a modification at trial in the elements of the crime charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Stirone this (was) fatal error requiring reversal, for (the defendants) may have been convicted on a ground not charged in the grand jury's indictment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“So, in order to establish the offense as charged the Government must prove the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the Defendant was an officer or employee of the bank described in the indictment; Second: That the bank was a national bank or an insured bank; Third: That the Defendant, being an officer or employee, knowingly and willfully embezzled or misapplied funds or credits belonging to the bank or intrusted to its care; and Fourth: That the Defendant acted with the intent to injure and defraud said bank. A "national bank” includes any national banking association organized under the national banking law; and "insured bank” includes any bank, state or national, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. To "embezzle" means the wrongful or willful taking of money or property of someone else after the money or property has lawfully come within the possession or control of the person taking it; and to “take” money or property means to knowingly and willfully deprive the owner of its use and benefit by converting it to one’s own use with intent to defraud the bank. However, no particular type of moving or carrying away is required to constitute a "taking.” Any appreciable change of the location of the property with the requisite willful intent constitutes a taking whether or not there is an actual removal of it from the owner’s premises. To "misapply” a bank's money or property means a willful conversion or ”
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.