Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 804 F.3d 558 - United States v. Binday

United States v. Binday’s Empirical Analysis

804 F.3d 558 · 2015

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Department (2004), United States v. Finazzo (2017)

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

43020152020decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 28 U.S.C. § 530B

Relies on State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · United States v. Cavera · United States v. Fernandez · United States v. Marcus · United States v. Marcus

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

  1. “it is not necessary that a defendant intend that his misrepresentation actually inflict a financial loss -- it suffices that a defendant intend that his misrepresentations induce a counterparty to enter a transaction without the relevant facts necessary to make an informed economic decision.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property as - 12 - the object of the scheme, and (3) use of the . . . wires to further the scheme.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The indictment need not allege ... that the specified harms had materialized ... or were certain to materialize in the future. Rather, it suffices to prove that the defendants' misrepresentations deprived the [fraud victims] of economically valuable information that bears on their decision-making.”
    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.