Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 739 F.2d 945 - United States v. Fleming

United States v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

739 F.2d 945 · 1984

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
12
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably State v. Rich (2000), United States v. Boise (1990)

38 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 states

31019841990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1112

Relies on Cupp v. Naughten · United States v. Park · Stevenson v. United States · United States v. Shaw · United States v. Dixon

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

  1. “[i]n the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Proof of the existence of malice does not require a showing that the accused harbored hatred or ill will against the victim or others. Neither does it require proof of an intent to kill or injure. Malice may be established by evidence of conduct which is reckless and wanton and a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, of such a nature that a jury is warranted in inferring that defendant was aware of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm. To support a conviction for [second degree] murder, the government need only have proved that defendant intended to operate his car in the manner in which he did with a heart that was without regard for the life and safety of others.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any ... robbery ..., is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.