United States v. Singer’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.3d 270 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 18 U.S.C. § 3295 (§ 708 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 26 U.S.C. § 7212
Relies on Puckett v. United States · United States v. Tutino · United States v. Kopituk · United States v. Gordon · United States v. Frost
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“two or more acts, each of which would constitute an offense standing alone ... may instead be charged in a single count if those acts could be characterized as part of a single, continuing scheme.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unnecessarily complex and confusing allegations and the concomitant prejudice to the defendant of charging him with scores of substantive counts arising out of the scheme.”
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.