United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
985 F.2d 1275 · 1993
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Wilson (1997), United States v. Bostian (1995)
22 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Michel v. United States · Johnson v. Righetti · Soto v. United States · Shaw v. Barr · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 38. Thus, the court held that “the broad prohibition against endeavoring to obstruct or impede 'the due administration of [Title 26]' should be limited to conduct which has the natural and probable effect of obstructing or impeding a pending government action under the Internal Revenue Code, [such as a subpoena, audit, or criminal tax investigation,] of which the defendant has notice.” Id. Since defendant’s alleged conduct occurred before he filed his tax returns, the court found the relationship between his conduct and”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining questions of foreign law, courts have turned to a wide variety of sources including affidavits and expert testimony .... ”); see also Universe Sales Co., Ltd. v. Silver Castle, Ltd., 182 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir.1999) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the internal revenue laws], shall be subject to cñminal punishment upon conviction. 26 U.S.C. § 7212 (emphasis added). Defendant is charged in Count I with violating the underlined clause of the statute, called the ‘'omnibus” clause.”
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.