United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
943 F.2d 738 · 1991
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably United States v. Chaney (1992), United States v. Seligsohn (1992)
60 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 3561
Relies on Teague v. Lane · Hughey v. United States · Gearhart Industries, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc. · United States v. Davies
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]roof of a scheme is an element of the offense of mail fraud, and therefore, actions pursuant to that scheme should be considered 'conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]roof of a scheme is an element of the offense of mail fraud, and therefore, actions pursuant to that scheme should be considered 'conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.' " Id. at 740 (quoting Hughey, 495 U.S. at 413, 110 S.Ct. at 1981). 2 We also admonished that: "The scheme concept is by its nature an amorphous one, and may only support an award of restitution if it is defined with specificity. A contrary rule would allow vague allegations of a scheme to support restitution based upon broad, unsubstantiated conduct.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.”
5 later decisions 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.