United States v. Bronston’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 920 · 1981
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc (1985), McNally v. United States (1987)
62 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Pereira v. United States · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Babich v. United States · Rewis 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he concealment by a fiduciary of material information which he is under a duty to disclose to another under circumstances where the non-disclosure could or does result in harm to the other is a violation of the [mail fraud] statute.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a mere breach of fiduciary duty, standing alone, may not necessarily constitute a mail fraud”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since an essential element of the crime charged is intent to defraud, it follows that good faith on the part of a defendant is a complete defense to a charge of fraud. A defendant has no burden to establish a defense of good faith. The burden is on the government to prove fraudulent intent and consequent lack of good faith beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the anti-fraud statutes, even false representations or statements or omissions of material facts do not amount to a fraud unless done with fraudulent intent. However misleading or deceptive a plan may be, still it is not fraudulent if it was devised or carried out in good faith. An honest belief in the truth of the representations made by a defendant is a good defense, however inaccurate the statement may turn out to be.””
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.