United States v. Yip’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 142 · 1991
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably United States v. Holmquist (1994), United States v. Rooney (1994)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 542
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Boyd v. United States · Russello v. United States · Perrin v. United States · Bifulco 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a construction ascribing to two separate statutory provisions the same meaning and scope is [therefore] disfavored.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever enters or introduces, or attempts to enter or introduce, into the commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent practice or appliance, or makes any false statement in any declaration without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, or procures the making of any such false statement as to any matter material thereto without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, whether or not the United States shall or may be deprived of any lawful duties; or Whoever is guilty of any willful act or omission whereby the United States shall or may be deprived of lawful duties accruing upon merchandise embraced or referred to in such invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected by such act or omission— Shall be fined for each offense not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Were this the only evidence supporting the government’s theory, we might agree; but it was not. Yip’s actions in using the funds to bankroll his other corporations, make personal loans to himself, pay off his mortgage, and take out a certificate of deposit in his own name also support the government’s theory of the ease. A rational trier of fact was entitled to believe that, after a certain point, these activities would bankrupt [Yip’s brokerage house] — and that Yip knew this — making his continued acceptance of [his client’s] funds fraudulent.”
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.