Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 843 F.2d 989 - United States v. Eckhardt

United States v. Eckhardt’s Empirical Analysis

843 F.2d 989 · 1988

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. Doerr (1989), United States v. Eisen (1992)

58 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

4401988199020002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282

Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · United States v. Lovasco · Hormel v. Helvering · McNally v. United States · United States v. Lane

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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a fraud[ulent] scheme involves multiple objectives, some of which are insufficient to state an offense under McNally, the remaining * * * charges [are] sufficient to state the offense if they are 'easily separable' from the charges deemed insufficient.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “are mere surplusage, and do not taint the remainder of the indictment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[M]ailings and calls which occur after the defendant has obtained the victims' money are in furtherance of the scheme if they facilitate concealment or postpone investigation of the scheme.”
    2 later decisions 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.