United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.3d 698 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)
Relies on United States v. Gaudin · Cheek v. United States · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Lambert v. People of the State of California · Liparota 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that “the question of materiality is not to be answered by reference only to the specific circumstances of the case at hand.” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 701 (D.C.Cir.2010) (applying materiality'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“seeking criminal penalties for violations of [ § 30121 ]-which requires that the defendant act 'willfully'- ... require[s] proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.