United States v. Hess’s Empirical Analysis
124 U.S. 483 · 1888
Citation profile
390 federal appellate · 165 district · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 899 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Hamling v. United States (1974), Russell v. United States (1962)
390 federal appellate · 165 district · 154 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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 United States v. Cruikshank · United States v. Carll · United States v. Simmons
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 899 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The object of the indictment is — First, to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable, him to make his defense, and avail himself of his. conviction' or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the samé cause; and, second, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it' may decide whether'they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. * * * ””
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Undoubtedly, the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As a foundation for the charge, a scheme or artifice to defraud must be stated, which the accused either devised, or intended to devise, with all such particulars as are essential to constitute the scheme or artifice, and to acquaint him with what he must meet on the trial;” and that the ordinary doctrine respecting a charge in statutory language, “does not meet the difficulty here;” adding “Undoubtedly, the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.””
6 later decisions 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.