United States v. Stefan’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 1093 · 1986
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably McCoy v. United States (2001), United States of America v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez (2001)
75 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 12 U.S.C. § 375A (§ 22 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 84 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 656 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Young · Hamling v. United States · United States v. Bailey · Bell 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If an indictment specifically refers to the statute on which the charge was based, the reference to the statutory language adequately informs the defendant of the charge.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“practical, rather than technical considerations govern the validity of the indictment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allows the trier of facts to infer that the habit was conformed with on a particular occasion’’); Fed.R.Evid. 406 advisory committee’s notes ("Agreement is general that habit evidence is highly persuasive as proof of conduct on a particular occasion.’’). 4 . Fed.R.App.P. 10(e) provides: If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court and the record made to conform to the truth. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. All other questions as to the form and content of the record shall be presented to the court of appeals. 5 . "Much disagreement exists regarding the propriety of allowing the issue of whether omissions are significant enough to require reversal under the Court Reporter Act to turn on whether the appellant has a new lawyer or not.”
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.