Dorszynski v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
1,149 federal appellate · 51 district · 189 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,685 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Booker (2004), Rita v. United States (2007)
1,149 federal appellate · 51 district · 189 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Dorszynski (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Tucker · Kent v. United States · Townsend v. Burke
Cited together with United States v. Tucker · Williams v. People of State of New York · Townsend v. Burke · Gore v. United States · Glasser 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 1,685 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)n important element of the program was that once a person was committed for treatment under the Act, the execution of sentence was to fit the person, not the crime for which he was convicted.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) If the court shall find that a convicted person is a youth offender, and the offense is punishable by imprisonment under applicable provisions of law other than this subsection, the court may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter until discharged by the Division as provided in section 5017(c) of this chapter; or (c) If the court shall find that the youth offender may not be able to derive maximum benefit from treatment by the Division prior to the expiration of six years from the date of conviction it may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter for any further period that may be authorized by law for the offense or offenses of which he stands convicted or until discharged by the Division as provided in section 5017(d) of this chapter.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Literal compliance with the Act can be satisfied by any expression that makes clear the sentencing judge considered the alternative of sentencing under the Act and decided that the youth offender would not derive benefit from treatment under the Act.”
16 later decisions 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.