United States v. Jinwright’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.3d 471 · 2012
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 102 · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 26 U.S.C. § 62
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner · United States v. Gaudin · United States v. Scott
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he total scheme was sophisticated in the way all the steps were linked together so that [the defendant] could perceive and exploit different vulnerabilities in different systems in a coordinated way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant need not utilize the most complex means possible to conceal his fraudulent activities in order for the court to find that he used sophisticated means.”
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.