United States v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1290 · 1986
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably McNally v. United States (1987), Skilling v. United States (2010)
51 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Hamling v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Pereira v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Russell 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it permits the defendant to obtain 'significant protections which the guarantee of a grand jury indictment was intended to confer.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he “intangible rights” theory is anchored upon the defendant’s misuse of his public office for personal profit. “This doctrine of the deprivation of honest and faithful service has developed to fit the situation in which a public official avails himself of his public position to enhance his private advantage____” United States v. Dixon, 536 F.2d 1388 , 1400 (2d Cir.1976). Conversely, misconduct of a fiduciary in the administration of exclusively private matters in his capacity as a private individual which does not involve the misuse of public office or public trust, is not actionable as a violation of the mail fraud statute under an intangible rights theory. United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014 , 1024 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 , 99 S.Ct. 1022 , 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
2 later decisions 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.