United States v. Silvano’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 754 · 1987
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably McNally v. United States (1987), United States v. Frost (1997)
55 federal appellate · 13 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Commissioner v. Engle · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A mailing need only be closely related to the scheme and reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's actions.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he affirmative duty to disclose material information arises out of a government official's fiduciary relationship to his or her employer, whether as a public or as a private employee.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court rejected this federalism argument long ago. Badders v. United States, 240 U.S. 391 [ 36 S.Ct. 367 , 60 L.Ed. 706 ] (1916) [parallel citations omitted] (Whatever the limits to its power, Congress may forbid putting letters into the post office when such acts are “done in furtherance of a scheme that it regards as contrary to public policy, whether it can forbid the scheme or not.”). See also Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370 [ 80 S.Ct. 1171 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1277 ] (1960) [parallel citations omitted]. This court has specifically stated that Congress enacted the mail fraud statute to protect the integrity of the mails and that it reaches use of the mails “to implement fraudulent schemes directed at a state agency.” United States v. Rendini, 738 F.2d 530, 533 (1st Cir.1984). [citations omitted.]”
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.