United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
877 F.2d 294 · 1989
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Bishop (1992), United States v. Briscoe (1990)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1505 · 2 U.S.C. § 192 · 26 U.S.C. § 7212
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · North Carolina v. Pearce · McNally v. United States · Michel v. United States · Johnson v. Righetti
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of whether a given congressional investigation is a ‘due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry’ for purposes of § 1505 can not be answered by a myopic focus on formality. Rather, it is properly answered by a careful examination of all the surrounding circumstances. If it is apparent that the investigation is a legislative exercise of investigative authority by a congressional committee in an area within the committee’s purview, it should be protected by § 1505.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he proper inquiry is whether a defendant had the requisite corrupt intent to improperly influence the investigation, not on the means the defendant employed in bringing to bear this influence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any endeavor, including the promised exploitation of a special relationship with the chair of the investigating committee, when done with the requisite intent to corruptly influence a congressional investigation, violates Sec. 1505.”
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.