Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 348 F.2d 167 - Dichner v. United States

Dichner v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

348 F.2d 167 · 1965

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
July 2012
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Gregory v. United States (1966), Nimrod v. Sylvester (1966)

31 federal appellate · 1 district ·

210196519701980199020002010decided

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. § 1010 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282

Relies on Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Silber v. United States · Lash 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In this court the defendant engages in the much too popular pastime of scutinizing [sic] the transcript and alleging possible errors that had not been noted before. We have, on a number of occasions, stated that we will not consider such matters unless the error was of great magnitude. See Lash v. United States, 1 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 237 , cert. den. 350 U.S. 826 , 76 S.Ct. 55 , 100 L.Ed. 738 . We would add that the presentation of routine, previously unobjected to matters, often not error at all, as if we had made no such announcement, unduly burdens the court and serves only to cast unmerited reflection upon trial counsel, who normally is in a better position to appraise the propriety and materiality of the conduct subsequently criticized, and presumably purposely did not object. It is also unfair to the court and the public generally if a defendant can have two bites at the cherry by saying nothing and then coming back and asking for a second chance.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`Plain error' means precisely that, and `exceptional circumstances' must in fact be exceptional.”
    2 later decisions 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.