Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 F.3d 1007 - United States v. Dando

United States v. Dando’s Empirical Analysis

287 F.3d 1007 · 2002

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

190200220102020decided

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 Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Smith v. Barry · Carlisle v. United States · United States v. Smartt · United States v. Blackwell

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

  1. “If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. If the victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for an amended restitution order. Such order may be granted only upon a showing of good cause for the failure to include such losses in the initial claim for restitutionary relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The court’s authority to order restitution post-sentencing derives solely from the statutory grant of jurisdiction in 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (d)(5). . The notice and time requirements imposed by jurisdictional statutes generally are mandatory. Courts lack authority to act in cases where the litigants have not satisfied these requirements. ■”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the delay was due to Defendant's request for a continuance and for an evidentiary hearing. Where a defendant's own conduct delayed the timely entry of a restitution order, the defendant cannot insist on strict conformity with the statute's time prescriptions.”
    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.