United States v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.2d 369 · 1989
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 86 - People v. Hardy (1992), United States v. Drew (1990)
38 federal appellate · 2 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 15 U.S.C. § 637 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Huddleston v. United States · Jenkins v. Anderson · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Gregory v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence is relevant to a material issue; (2) the prior bad acts are similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the crime charged; (3) there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the prior acts; and (4) the potential prejudice of the evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it [is] incumbent upon the government to introduce proof sufficient to establish the falsity of the statements as well as the defendant's knowing and willful submission of the statements. In carrying out that burden the government must negative any reasonable interpretation that would make the defendant's statement factually correct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“negative only any reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statement. The statements at issue here — `never been in force' and `null and void' — have accepted meanings. It was the jury's role then to determine whether Lundin made these unambiguous statements with the required knowledge that they were false.”
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.