United States v. Danielczyk’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (§ 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 2 U.S.C. § 431 (§ 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 437G (§ 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971)
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Hamling v. United States · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Kolender v. Lawson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intended to violate the law (whatever the law was); but it [did not need to] prove [the] [d]efendants' awareness of the specific law's commands.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Newton“In common usage, one who causes something to happen or brings it about ... 'made' it happen just the same as the person who executed the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the parent reimbursing his daughter's fundraiser ticket is not intuitively 'bad' ... his actions would meet the actus reus”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Newton
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.