Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 504 F.2d 1045 - United States v. Fleming

United States v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

504 F.2d 1045 · 1974

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
5
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably United States v. West (1982), 3 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Cartellone (1981)

29 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

16019741980199020002010decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Dunn v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “*18 . Nevertheless, in view of our appraisal of the intent of the trial judge, . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Defendants contend first that Judge Foreman erred in sentencing them separately under subsections (a), (b) and (d) for what was in fact the robbery of a single teller. They argue that subsections (a) and (b) merge into the aggravated robbery punishable under subsection (d), and that even the imposition of concurrent sentences was erroneous. Then, they contend that the placing of the lives of two tellers in jeopardy during a single bank robbery does not constitute the commission of two separate offenses under subsection (d). Thus, they conclude that their maximum sentences should have been those imposed by Judge Foreman for one subsection (d) violation: 20 years. For the following reasons, we agree” (at 1052).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank.... ****** [s]hall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.””
    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.