United States v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.2d 638 · 1978
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States v. Bilzerian (1991), Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries Inc Securities and Exchange Commission (1980)
41 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 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. § 371
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Sanabria v. United States · United States v. Estepa · United States v. Jacobs · United States v. Jacobs, AKA Kramer
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]roper regard for the public interest in the prosecution of crimes counsels restraint in dismissing an indictment for deterrence purposes.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“22 United States v. Jacobs, 531 F.2d 87 , 90 (2 Cir.) (dismissal of perjury count of indictment affirmed in interest of prosecutorial fairness in the same district regarding warning grand jury witness that she was a target of investigation), vacated and remanded, 429 U.S. 909 , [ 97 S.Ct. 299 , 50 L.Ed.2d 277 ], aff’d on remand, 547 F.2d 772 (2 Cir. 1976), cert. dismissed, 436 U.S. 31 , [ 98 S.Ct. 1873 , 56 L.Ed.2d 53 ] (1978); United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106 , 1112 (8 Cir. 1977) (dismissal of indictment affirmed because of breach of “prosecutorial agreement, the inviolability of which rested completely in the province of the government prosecutors” (emphasis added)); United States v. Henderson, 525 F.2d 247 , 250 & n.12 (5 Cir. 1975) (dismissal of indictment affirmed because of failure of prosecutor to furnish defendants with transcript of prior state court trial where three of defendants had been acquitted). 23 United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132 , 1137 (2 Cir. 1972) (Friendly, J.) [judgments of conviction reversed with instructions to dismiss indictment for failure to heed repeated warnings by this court against the use of hearsay testimony before the grand jury]; accord, United States v. Jacobs, supra, 547 F.2d at 778 (on remand) [see facts supra n.22]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“containing any statement which . . . is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading.”
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.