United States v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 1264 · 1993
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Branch (1996), United States v. Drew (2000)
29 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Angrist v. United States · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Shugrue · United States v. Galloway · United States v. Young · United States v. Stephenson
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n indictment is legally sufficient on its face if it contains all of the essential elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and alleges sufficient information to allow a defendant to plead a conviction or acquittal to bar a subsequent prosecution.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An indictment will ordinarily be held sufficient unless it is so defective that it cannot be said, by any reasonable construction, to charge the offense for which the defendant was convicted. To establish reversible error from the denial of a motion for a bill of particulars, a defendant must show that he was actually surprised at trial and suffered prejudice from the denial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fleming did not file any motion to dismiss the indictment, [and] his only challenge to the indictment in district court was a motion for a bill of particulars.” Id. at 1265 n. 2. Because Defendant has not sought a bill of particulars, it is unclear how Fleming would be relevant to the present case. . See also Def.'s Mem. at 2 (”
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.