Fleming v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.2d 475 · 1964
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2010 · most notably United States v. Bornstein (1976), United States v. Irwin (1981)
19 federal appellate · 6 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 Rainwater v. United States · United States v. McNinch · Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District · Toepleman v. United States · Berenbeim 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)(7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penally of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person ... * * * * * * (b) Knomng and knowingly defined. For purposes of this section, the terms ‘knowing’ and ‘knowingly’ mean that a person, with respect to information— (1) has actual knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Had Congress intended to incorporate * * * intent to defraud into each portion of the (False Claims) Act, it is unlikely that it would have done so expressly in two portions and not in the remaining portions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... expressly provides for a penalty of $2,000, ‘and, in addition, double the amount of damages which the United States may have sustained.’ This makes it plain that regardless of damages sustained, the United States would still be entitled to recover the penalty. This point refers to instances where the United States withheld payments on account of the discovery of fraud, so that no actual damage was shown. However, that would not preclude the United States from recovery of the penalty....””
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.