Dolan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
218 F.2d 454 · 1955
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 1994 · most notably United States v. Gaudin (1994), Roberson v. United States (1957)
59 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Sinclair v. United States · Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Hopt v. People · Josephine Throckmorton v. Washington Holt
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * But if the evidence is of such an exceptionally prejudicial character that its withdrawal from the consideration of the jury cannot remove the harmful effect caused by its admission, a new trial will be granted. * * * (Emphasis ours.) Dolan v. United States, 8 Cir., 218 F.2d 454, 460 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dolan himself, while under cross-examination, testified that he could not positively identify the two metal suitcases as being the ones that Hall had, since he (Dolan) put no mark of identification on them, but that they looked similar to the suitcases he saw the money in when they were opened at the police station the night of October 6, 1953. Whether the metal suitcases admitted in evidence were conclusively proven to be the suitcases which Dolan and Shoulders took from Hall is unimportant. They were, in any event, admissible as being like those suitcases. They were important mainly for the purpose of enabling the jury to judge whether such suitcases would or would not have been readily observable by those who testified that they saw nothing of the sort in the hands of Dolan or Shoulders at the time Hall was brought into the station and during the time he was being booked and placed in the `holdover' or shortly thereafter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Barnholtz“[d]eliberate false swearing before a grand jury, tending to influence, mislead or hamper its investigation of a matter which it has authority to investigate . . . .”
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.