United States v. Bauer’s Empirical Analysis
713 F.2d 71 · 1983
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2018
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Texas v. Louisiana · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · Milanovich v. United States · Mackay v. Nesbett · Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n light of Feola we must agree that the wording of [§ 641] and its legislative history ... show no intent that it be a required element of the federal offense that the defendant knew the stolen property belonged to the Government. Use of the common law terms such as embezzlement, larceny and the like in the statute, without a contrary direction, may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them. And it was not an essential part of the common law larceny-type offense that the thief knew who owned the property he took; it was enough that he knew it did not belong to him. The requirement in § 641 that the stolen property be a record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States furnishes the jurisdictional basis for the federal offense. However, knowledge of such jurisdictional facts is not generally an element of the required intent under federal statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever receives, conceals, or retains [stolen government property] with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted —”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“expectation that he could sell the [savings] bonds, and his attempt to do so . . . belie the contention that they were without value or were worth not more than $100”
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.