United States v. Seda’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 779 · 1992
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Dupre (1997), United States v. Chacko (1999)
19 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Carnegie v. United States · Whalen v. United States · Albernaz 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine whether an indictment is multiplicitous, ... we inquire whether each of the provisions defining the offenses unambiguously authorizes punishment for a violation of its terms, whether the two offenses are sufficiently distinguishable from one another that the inference that Congress intended to authorize .multiple punishments is a reasonable one, and if so, whether the legislative history evidences a contrary legislative intent. The statutes are examined under the Blockburger test to determine if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Zvi
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.