708 F. Supp. 385 - United States v. North’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1505 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621
Relies on Poland v. Arizona · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Bailey v. Butcher · McGrain v. Daugherty · United States v. Lavelle
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 1505 contains a jurisdictional element. The obstruction must occur during the due and proper exercise by Congress of its power of inquiry.” United States v. North, 708 F.Supp. 385 , 386 (D.D.C. 1988); see also Cisneros, 26 F.Supp.2d at 38 (”
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.