United States v. Popow’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 483 · 1987
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2005
9 federal appellate · 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) · 19 U.S.C. § 1496 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 482 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Gilliland · United States v. Bramblett · Eason v. Dandridge · Bryson v. United States · Addington v. Texas
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“just hear enough evidence to make the judgment that a crime has probably been committed and that the person to be charged has probably committed it”
1 later decision 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.