United States v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 480 · 1991
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Hill (1992), McCleese v. United States (1996)
27 federal appellate ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart · McCarthy v. United States · United States v. Tucker
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Before accepting a plea of guilty ..., the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: (1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or supervised release term....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he Constitution does not require that a defendant be furnished 'with information about parole eligibility in order for the defendant's plea of guilty to be voluntary, and indeed such a constitutional requirement would be inconsistent with the current rules of procedure governing the entry of guilty pleas in the federal courts.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the sentencing court fails to apprise a defendant of the possibility of restitution but the defendant has notice of a possible fine in excess of the amount of the restitution ultimately ordered, the court's failure to raise the possibility of restitution is harmless error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.