United States v. Muni’s Empirical Analysis
668 F.2d 87 · 1981
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Zichettello (2000), Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co. (1999)
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 1644 (§ 134 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Bullock v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · United States v. Feola
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where one does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended, then he 'causes' the mails to be used.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an act [can be] caused not simply when it was a physical consequence of the person's conduct but when, in addition, the actor either knew the consequence would occur or its occurrence was reasonably foreseeable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he content of reasonable foreseeability must inevitably keep pace with advances in technology and general awareness of such advances,”
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.