United States v. Lebedev’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.3d 40 · 2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1517 · 18 U.S.C. § 215 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Roldan-Zapata · United States of America v. Zolton Williams · United States v. Carboni · 134 S. Ct. 2384 - Loughrin 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a showing that the defendant, through the withholding or inaccurate reporting of information that could impact on economic decisions, deprived some person or entity of potentially valuable economic information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The federal mail and wire fraud statutes penalize using the mails or a wire communication to execute 'any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since a defining feature of most property is the right to control the asset in question, . . . property interests protected by the wire fraud statute include the interest of a victim in controlling his or her own assets.”
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.