United States v. Lawson’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1514 · 1987
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Calhoon (1996), United States v. Robert S. Falcone, Sandra S. Falcone (1991)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1010 · 18 U.S.C. § 495
Relies on Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · United States v. Rodgers · Sims v. Gardner · United States v. Lichenstein
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Custom Service, did knowingly and willfully make, and cause to be made false, fraudulent and fictitious statements and representations as to a material fact, in that the defendants stated in the Shippers Export Declarations (SED’s) set forth below that cargo bound for Europe contained only cargo other than cigarettes, when in truth and fact, as the defendants well knew, the cargo would and did contain cigarettes as part of the contents, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are certain that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court intended the statute to include traditional trial tactics within the statutory terms 'conceals or covers up.’ We hold only, on the authority of the Supreme Court construction, that the statute does apply to the type of action with which appellant was charged, action which essentially involved the ‘administrative’ or ‘housekeeping’ functions, not the ‘judicial’ machinery of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(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 rep resentation; or (8) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.”
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.