United States v. Dale’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 1054 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States v. Mandanici (2000), United States v. Cunningham (1998)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3571 · 2 U.S.C. § 192 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Teague v. Lane · Murray v. Carrier · Johnson v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must at least demonstrate that 'there is a reasonable probability that, but for [the errors], the result of the proceeding would have been different.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dale has suggested no facts or theory to rebut the district judge’s legal eonclu sion that the charged nondisclosures were material to the Department’s decision whether to grant clearance.... In the absence of any basis for finding Dale’s misrepresentations were not material, we cannot say that the judge’s failure to submit materiality to the jury “worked to [Dale’s] actual and substantial disadvantage.” The failure therefore was not prejudicial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced,” unless the new rule “places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe,” or constitutes a”
1 later decision 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.