United States v. Jimenez’s Empirical Analysis
77 F.3d 95 · 1996
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Akpan (2005), United States v. Webster (1998)
34 federal appellate · 2 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. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Bruton v. United States · Hernandez v. New York · Richardson v. Marsh · United States v. Espinoza-Seanez
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Intent to defraud requires an intent to (1) deceive, and (2) cause some harm to result from the deceit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to himself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing keeping in mind that the district court imposed no fine in light of the restitution order.” (citing Hayes, 32 F.3d at 173 ; United States v. Aguirre, 926 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.1991))); Hayes, 32 F.3d at 173 (”
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.