United States v. McGuire’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 1197 · 1984
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably McGuire v. United States (1985), United States v. Nivica (1989)
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 1005
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Russell v. United States · Michelson v. United States · Houltin v. United States · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with intent to deceive or cheat[,] ordinarily for the purpose of causing a financial loss to someone else or bringing about a financial gain to oneself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once the defendant has 'opened the door' by offering evidence as to his good character, the prosecution may rebut that evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Seale Ej a · United States v. Earnest Seale, Jr., AKA E.J. (89-4098), William McCrady (90-3007), Lester Ware, AKA Larry Lester (90-3008), Crystal Woodard (90-3014), Edward Sylvester Gray (90-3209), William McCrady (90-3211), Michael Jerome Davis (90-3215) and Thomas A. Walker, AKA Tony Walker“The price a defendant must pay for attempting to prove his good name is to throw open the entire subject which the law has kept closed for his benefit and to make himself vulnerable where the law otherwise shields him. The prosecution may pursue the inquiry with contradictory witnesses to show that damaging rumors, whether or not well-grounded, were afloat — for it is not the man that he is, but the name that he has which is put in issue. Another hazard is that his own witness is subject to cross-examination as to the contents and extent of the hearsay on which he bases his conclusions, and he may be required to disclose rumors and reports that are current even if they do not affect his own conclusion. It may test the sufficiency of his knowledge by asking what stories were circulating concerning events, such as one’s arrest, about which people normally comment and speculate. Thus, while the law gives defendant the option to show as a fact that his reputation reflects a life and habit incompatible with commission of the offense charged, it subjects his proof to tests of credibility designed to prevent him from profiting by a mere parade of partisans.”
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.