Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 980 F.2d 8 - United States v. Haggert

United States v. Haggert’s Empirical Analysis

980 F.2d 8 · 1992

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
November 2014
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably United States v. Brandon (1994), United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez (2003)

35 federal appellate · 3 district ·

220199220002010decided

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

Relies on Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc. · United States v. Dietz · United States v. Kopp · United States v. St. Cyr · United States v. Schneider

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “horrendous cases where a gross miscarriage of justice would occur.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that there are two types of fraud: “The first type of fraud implicates the ‘true con artist,’ ... who intends only to pocket the money without rendering [anything] in return. The second type of fraud involves a person who would not have attained the contract or loan but for the fraud, but who fully intends to perform.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]e have repeatedly stated in the sentencing context, as well as in other areas, that issues not presented to the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.”
    3 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.