United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.3d 416 · 2016
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Relies on United States v. Ervasti · Sterling Chemicals, Inc. v. Evans · United States v. Baker · United States v. Anderson · United States v. Brown
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Intent to defraud need not be proved by direct evidence. Provided the victims suffered some tangible loss ... the scheme itself often serves as evidence of a defendant's intent to defraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a position of public or private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.”
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.