United States v. Hallmark’s Empirical Analysis
911 F.2d 399 · 1990
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2021
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 3122 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3123 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 26 U.S.C. § 4401 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Smith v. Maryland · Marchetti v. United States · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Farnsworth then transferred his holdings to another broker and stopped working with Orlando. There was sufficient evidence that Orlando had made an unauthorized trade constituting securities fraud. 28 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we hold the evidence, in the face of the jury verdict, was more than sufficient for a rational jury to convict on all counts. 29 IV.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Given the lack of any “legitimate expectation of privacy” at stake ..., the extremely limited judicial review required by 18 U.S.C. § 3122 is intended merely to safeguard against purely random use of this device by ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements established by Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“did not have to prove the exact amount by which [the defendant] misstated the tax returns; the witness' [estimates] demonstrated substantial understatements in the wagers he reported.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.