Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 F.3d 245 - United States v. Anderskow

United States v. Anderskow’s Empirical Analysis

88 F.3d 245 · 1996

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Anchors v. United States (1996), United States v. Voigt (1996)

31 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

3001996200020102020decided

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

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Pinkerton v. United States · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury verdict.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Donald Anchors had probably 20 or 30 borrowers, maybe more for all I know, who had been promised millions of dollars for a long time, some as long as a year. He had never seen one dime funded or loaned, and he kept on with the business at hand. I had no reason to believe that he wasn’t fully aware of what was occurring, as long as he was getting paid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”
    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.