United States v. Espy’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2018
8 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 6
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · Russello v. United States · Pereira v. United States · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress designated the Special Division a “division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” 28 U.S.C. § 49 . For this court to review the constitutionality of the referral jurisdiction granted in In re Espy would require it to sit in an appellate capacity over the D.C. Circuit, which it cannot and will not do. If the Special Division concluded that “the new matter is demonstrably related to the factual circumstances that gave rise to the Attorney General’s initial investigation and request for appointment of an independent counsel,” ... this court is not empowered to disturb those findings. Nor may this court substitute its own constitutional analysis of § 594(e) ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to determine whether a bill of particulars should be provided, and the court should grant a motion for a bill of particulars to the extent it believes it is necessary to allow the defendant[ ] to adequately prepare for and avoid surprise at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The law in this Circuit does not require allegations that a quid pro quo or selling of office is necessary for the indictment to support charges for honest services fraud.”
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.