United States v. Boffil-Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 736 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. Gaudin · Kungys v. United States · United States v. Lichenstein · United States v. Gunn
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Deciding whether a statement is “material” requires the determination of at least two subsidiary questions of purely historical fact: (a) “what statement was made?” and (b) “what decision was the agency trying to make?” The ultimate question: (c) “whether the statement was material to the decision,” requires applying the legal standard of materiality ... to these historical facts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.”
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.