United States v. Capener’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.3d 392 · 2010
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 1347 (§ 242 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Relies on Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean · United States v. Hinkson · Hendricks v. Calderon · United States v. Gilbert · United States v. Heavrin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, we determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. If it did, we then evaluate the trial court’s application of this legal standard to the facts of the case and may reverse only if its application was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“affirmative reason[s] for the [G]overnment to know such reliance [was] misplaced.”
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.