United States v. Olsons’s Empirical Analysis
751 F.2d 1126 · 1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States of America v. Rosa (1986), United States v. Kappes (1991)
22 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8106
Relies on United States v. Jorn · United States v. Scott · Serfass v. United States · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · Lee 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]n its face, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not limit its prohibition of falsification to matters which another statute or a regulation requires be provided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully ... makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“catch-all, reaching those false representations that might 'substantially impair the basic functions entrusted by law to [the particular] agency', but which are not prohibited by other statutes.”
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.