United States v. Borello’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 46 · 1985
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Mechanik (1986), United States v. Friedman (1988)
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 1462 · 18 U.S.C. § 542 · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1305 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Texas v. Brown · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · United States v. Jacobsen · Missouri v. Hunter
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly and willfully, with intent to defraud the United States . . . makes out or passes . . . through the customhouse any false, forged, or fraudulent invoice, or other document or paper”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]e have previously suggested that an Arroyo-Angulo error is harmless if the defendant subsequently attacks the witness’s credibility. [United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 , 151 (2d Cir.1979).] The error, however, cannot always be harmless.... [W]here we have spelled out in a series of cases the procedure for introducing cooperation agreements ... [f]or us to disapprove of the ... bolstering of the witness’s testimony and then to declare it harmless error would make our remarks in the previous cases purely “ceremonial.” The error cannot be deemed harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he 1954 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 545 , which deleted the word “revenue” from “intent to defraud the revenue of the United States” indicated that the primary Congressional purpose behind the Act was not to raise revenue but to supervise and regulate the inflow of imported goods. [Thus,] in light of the Act’s purpose [, it is] no longer necessary to show that the item or items introduced clandestinely into the United States were subject to duty in order to prove a violation of the Act.”
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.