United States v. Wolf’s Empirical Analysis
820 F.2d 1499 · 1987
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Olano (1995), United States v. Castro (1989)
44 federal appellate · 2 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 12 U.S.C. § 375 (§ 22 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 18 U.S.C. § 1005 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · California v. Southland Royalty Co. · United States v. J. Joseph Kennedy, United States of America v. Robert J. Myers, United States of America v. Lawrence F. Carlson · United States v. Buras
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlike references to [other civil violations which occurred during the trial], the references to Regulation O cannot be dismissed as being simply background information. The references were a key part of the government’s case on the misapplication and false entry counts.... To supply the missing element of the false entry and misapplication charges, the government turned to Regulation O. Through its expert witness the government established that Regulation O imposed a duty on [the defendant] to in form the bank’s directors that he had an interest in the loans.... In sum, the government used Regulation 0 to supply a crucial element of the misapplication and false entry charges.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A conviction, resulting from the government’s attempt to bootstrap a series of checking account overdrafts, a civil regulatory violation, into an equal amount of misapplication felonies, cannot be allowed to stand. The government’s evidence and argument concerning violations of § 375a impermissibly infected the very purpose for which the trial was being conducted....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“misapplication of funds ... occurs when funds are distributed under a record which misrepresents the true state of the record with the intent that bank officials, bank examiners, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will be deceived.”
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.