United States v. Stringer’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.3d 120 · 2013
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1028A · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 2 U.S.C. § 192
Relies on Hamling v. United States · Russell v. United States · Hartman v. United States · Flores-Figueroa v. United States · United States v. Rojas-Contreras
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]or certain statutes[,] specification of how a particular element of a criminal charge will be met (as opposed to categorical recitation of the element) is of such importance to the fairness of the proceeding that it must be spelled out in the indictment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the approximate time and place of the alleged crime.”
2 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.