United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.2d 1014 · 1982
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Seidman (1998), United States v. Manbeck (1984)
23 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 18 U.S.C. § 1005 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on United States v. Park · Mims v. United States · United States v. Pope · United States v. Truong Dinh Hung · Troy Cheair Smith v. United States of America, Evander Frierson Smith 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both the intent and the actual taking, however, may be proved by circumstantial evidence.... where, as here, the defendant alone has access to the property, a substantial shortage is disclosed, and no explanation of the shortage is tendered by the accused, the trier of fact may reasonably infer from the circumstances that the custodian of the property has embezzled the missing funds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a charge to a jury, considered in its entirety, correctly states the law, the incorrectness of one paragraph or one phrase standing alone ordinarily does not constitute reversible error; but it is otherwise if two instructions are in direct conflict and one is clearly prejudical, for the jury might have followed the erroneous instructions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a reviewing court need not pass upon the validity of [a] defendant's conviction for additional counts once it has affirmed his conviction on one count, but only if ' there is no substantial possibility that the unreviewed conviction will adversely affect the defendant's right to parole or expose him to a substantial risk of adverse collateral consequences.'”
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.