Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 MJ 310 - United States v. Dixon

United States v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
March 1993
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 826 · 10 U.S.C. § 829 · 10 U.S.C. § 839 · 10 U.S.C. § 886

Relies on United States v. Allen · United States v. Slubowski · United States v. Newcomb · United States v. Pickens · United States v. Smith

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

  1. “When Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839 (a), was added in 1969 [sic], giving new power and flexibility to the military judge (formerly the law officer), Congress anticipated that arraignments often would take place during pretrial hearings before the court members were present. Therefore, at this same time, Article 29(a) was amended to prescribe that a court-martial member not be “absent or excused after the court has been assembled for the trial of the accused____””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No member of a general or special court-martial shall be absent or excused after the accused has been arraigned except for physical disability or as a result of a challenge or by order of the convening authority for good cause.”
    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.