United States v. Wormick’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 454 · 1983
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1984), United States v. Shackleford (1984)
64 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Andresen v. Maryland · United States v. Maze · Padilla-Martinez 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Mailings are in furtherance of a scheme if they are incidental to an essential part of the scheme. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9 [ 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-63 , 98 L.Ed. 435 ] (1954). Under this definition, mailings made after the scheme has reached its fruition are not in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 [ 94 S.Ct. 645 , 38 L.Ed.2d 603 ] (1974), nor are mailings which conflict with the purposes of the scheme and have little effect upon the scheme. United States v. Staszcuk, 502 F.2d 875 (7th Cir.1974).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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“(1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue ..., (3) the evidence is clear and convincing, and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
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.