Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 F.2d 601 - Doss v. United States

Doss v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

431 F.2d 601 · 1970

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
4
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 1027 - People v. Mitcham (1992), United States v. Morlang (1975)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

2201970198019902000decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3

Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · California v. Green · United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co.

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

  1. ““The rationale and decision in Wade is epitomized in the following quotation: “ ‘Since it appears that there is grave potential for prejudice, intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup which may not be capable of reconstruction at trial and since the presence of counsel itself can often avert prejudice and assure meaningful confrontation at trial, there can be little doubt that for Wade the post-indictment lineup was a critical stage of the prosecution at which he was “as much entitled to such aid” [of counsel] — as at the trial itself.’ ([388 U.S. at] p. 237, 87 S.Ct. at p. 1937)”
    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.