United States v. Greenberg’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 29 · 1984
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Aramony (1996), United States v. Helmsley (1991)
46 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Angrist v. United States · In re Vendo Co. · Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization · United States v. Sun Myung Moon · Rauch 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““purpose of sec. 7206(1) is not simply to ensure that the taxpayer pay the proper amount of taxes — though that is surely one of its goals. Rather that section is intended to ensure also that the taxpayer not make misstatements that could hinder the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in carrying out such functions as the verification of the accuracy of that return or a related tax return.” 735 F.2d 31 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A false statement is `material' when it has `the potential for hindering the IRS's efforts to monitor and verify the tax liability' of the ... taxpayer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Mjateriality refers to the impact that the statement may reasonably have on the ability of that agency to perform the functions assigned to it by law. The question is not what effect the statement actually had; its actual effect would plainly present an issue 'of fact. The question is rather whether the statement had the potential for an obstructive or inhibitive effect.”
2 later decisions 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.