Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 788 F.2d 714 - United States v. Tabor

United States v. Tabor’s Empirical Analysis

788 F.2d 714 · 1986

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Brogan v. United States (1998), United States v. Prater (1991)

24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

2201986199020002010decided

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. § 1006 · 18 U.S.C. § 287

Relies on United States v. Gilliland · United States v. Bramblett · Paternostro v. United States · United States v. Lambert · United States v. Bedore

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “warn[ing] Tabor of the possible consequences of her statements,'' id., at 718, the agent went to her home with a deputy sheriff and questioned her about the transaction. When Tabor, regrettably but humanly, denied wrongdoing, the Government prosecuted her under §1001. See id., at 716. An IRS agent thus turned a violation of state law into a federal felony by eliciting a lie that misled no one. (The Eleventh Circuit reversed the §1001 conviction, relying on the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The appellant in the case at bar made no statement relating to any claim on his behalf against the United States or any agency thereof; he was not seeking to obtain or retain any official position or employment in any agency or department of the Federal Government; and he did not aggressively and deliberately initiate any positive or affirmative statement calculated to pervert the legitimate functions of Government.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.