Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 625 F.2d 158 - United States v. Mitchell

United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

625 F.2d 158 · 1980

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Hayle v. United States (1987), United States v. Croft (1984)

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2801980199020002010decided

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. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 501 · 42 U.S.C. § 603 (§ 403 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on United States v. Tucker · United States Marcus v. Hess · Michel v. United States · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Tate 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As previously stated, this supervision includes quarterly federal reviews and annual audits and state • reports with the ultimate sanction for discrepancies in the reports or misuse of the funds being reclamation of the money by the federal government. The fact that this reclamation is normally or even always enforced on an installment basis by reductions in future allotments does not, we believe, remove the funds allotted from the protection provided by § 641. The installment method seems simply the most convenient means to accomplish the reclamation and we find, similarly to the Court’s statement in United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 544 , 63 S.Ct. 379, 384 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943), that the statute “does not make the extent of [the fund’s] safeguard depend upon the bookkeeping devices used for [its] distribution.””
    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.