United States v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.2d 1091 · 1989
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Neder v. United States (1999), United States v. Gomez-Norena (1990)
38 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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 42 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 208 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bourjaily v. United States · McNally v. United States · Bifulco v. United States · United States v. Bishop · United States v. Marabelles
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any failure to report income is material.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“blanket objection to admission of tape does not preserve an objection to failure to redact tape”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Reversal of a criminal conviction on the basis of plain error is an exceptional remedy, which we invoke only when it appears necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process.”
2 later decisions 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.