Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.2d 958 - United States v. Crummer

United States v. Crummer’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.2d 958 · 1945

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
January 2001
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably United States v. Isaacs (1974), State v. Hall (1990)

41 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

2401945195019601970198019902000decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Hagner v. United States · United States v. Cruikshank · Wong Tai v. United States · Durland 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““While the particulars of the scheme are matters of substance and therefore must be described with a degree of certainty sufficient to show its existence of character, and fairly to acquaint the defendant with the particular fraudulent scheme charged against him, still the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.” (Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Coming to the question whether the indictment was duplicitous, it is well settled that duplicity in criminal pleading is the joinder of two or more separate and distinct offenses in the same count in an indictment or information, not the charging of a single offense involving a multiplicity of ways and means of action and procedure.” (p. 963.)”
    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.