United States v. Diwan’s Empirical Analysis
864 F.2d 715 · 1989
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Cross (1991), United States v. Lehder-Rivas (1992)
27 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1461 · 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Hamling v. United States · McNally v. United States · Carpenter v. United States · United States v. Rauscher
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he extradited individual * * * can raise only those objections to the extradition process that the surrendering country might consider a breach of the extradition treaty”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pang · Leighnor v. Turner“One objective of this conspiracy ... was that the girls forfeit modelling services, photographs, and the likenesses that emanate therefrom. The photographer would lose the value of his services, as would the ... [tjalent [ajgency ... the photographer would necessarily have to use film and other materials in producing the photographs, and [the talent agency] would forfeit proprietary business information — the identities and the addresses of aspiring actresses. All of these items have value to the owner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Diwan misses the point when she argues that the primary objective of the scheme was merely personal sexual indulgence, and not the deprivation of property through fraud. The entire array of deprivations announced in the indictment would be a necessary result of the overt acts planned to further the scheme. If the defendants were to achieve success in their endeavor in the chosen manner, the girls, the photographer, and the talent agency would have to lor :, and what they would lose is property.”
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.