United States v. Dellinger’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 340 · 1972
Citation profile
226 federal appellate · 10 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 366 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985), Mu'Min v. Virginia (1991)
226 federal appellate · 10 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 28 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2101 · 18 U.S.C. § 2102 · 18 U.S.C. § 231 (Civil Obedience Act of 1968) · 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Berger v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Swain v. State of Alabama · Shapiro v. Thompson · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
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 366 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even though otherwise free from objection under the hearsay rule and its exceptions, detracts from the fund of relevant information which should be available to the jury, without, in compensation, materially insuring the integrity of the trial process.”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) to incite a riot; or (B) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or (C) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or (D) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine of overbreadth applies when a statute lends itself to a substantial number of impermissible applications, such that it is capable of deterring protected conduct, when the area affected by the challenged law substantially involves first amendment interests, and when there is not a valid construction which avoids abridgment of first amendment interests.” (Footnotes omitted.)”
2 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.