United States v. Ring’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.3d 460 · 2013
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments)
Relies on Old Chief v. United States · United States v. Stevens · United States v. Brewster · Wisconsin v. Mitchell · Skilling 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he attorney acted in his official capacity to influence the visa application process.... To be sure, the attorney himself lacked independent authority to expedite visa applications. But Ring’s attempt to import a requirement that the official in question have ultimate de-cisionmaking authority into the definition of “official act” has no statutory basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant may be [found] guilty of honest-services bribery where he offers an official something of value with a specific intent to effect a quid pro quo . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“used as a synonym for specific intent. When, as in Dean , a public official is charged with ' soliciting a bribe, the evidence must show that the official conveyed an intent to perform official acts in exchange for personal benefit. Accordingly, the element absent in Dean [was] an intent to offer or solicit an exchange of official action for personal gain.”
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.