United States v. Palzer’s Empirical Analysis
745 F.2d 1350 · 1984
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably United States v. Khoury (1990), United States v. Perkins (1984)
28 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) · 31 U.S.C. § 1101 (Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010) · 31 U.S.C. § 5316 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Burks v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida · Bates v. State Bar
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The substance of the indictment in this case charges Palzer with willfully failing to report the fact that he was bringing more than $5,000 in currency into the country. Nothing in the content of Form 4790, which Palzer now challenges, is implicated in the offense charged in the indictment, i.e., the willful failure to report the fact that he was bringing in more than $5,000. Section 103.23(a), 31 C.F.R., clearly informed Palzer of the requirement to report the fact that he was carrying more than $5,000 in currency. Section 103.25(b), 31 C.F.R., reiterates the reporting requirement, and specifies the time, place, and manner in which the report is to be made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this context, the "exculpatory no” doctrine creates an additional element of the government’s case under § 1001; the government must show that the defendant knew that it was permissible or legal to bring more than $5,000 in currency into the country before a prosecution for a defendant’s false representation that he was not carrying more than $5,000 can be sustained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The defendant’s] argument[] relating to the sufficiency of the evidence ... would ... entitle him to a judgment of acquittal ... if successful. Because retrial would then violate double jeopardy, we are compelled to address [his] claim[] ....” (emphasis added)). 11 . Although the court initially instructed the jury that 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) made it a crime”
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.