United States v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 608 · 2014
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Relies on Richardson v. United States · United States v. Briscoe · United States v. Sheneman · United States v. Lyons · United States v. LaPlante
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e review de novo whether jury instructions accurately summarize the law, but give the district court substantial discretion to formulate the instructions provided that the instructions represent a complete and correct statement of the law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“they were merely the means he used to commit an element of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the instructions used in this case accurately conveyed the law,”
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.