United States v. Muldoon’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.2d 282 · 1991
Citation profile
41 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Kinter (2000), United States v. Mariano (1993)
41 federal appellate ·
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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Daughtrey · United States v. Gordon · United States v. Davis
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Muldoon's acceptance of responsibility can be said to fit within [the] 'rare situation',”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This may occur, for example, where a defendant goes to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Sealed Case“The essential difference between a bribe and an illegal gratuity is the intention of the bribe giver to effect a quid pro quo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.