United States v. Dougherty’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 1113 · 1972
Citation profile
122 federal appellate · 10 district · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 292 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984)
122 federal appellate · 10 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 32 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. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 28 U.S.C. § 1654 · 28 U.S.C. § 291
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Simmons v. United States · Morissette v. United States · Duncan v. State of Louisiana
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 292 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the knowledge that it was the claim that he put forward that was considered and rejected, and to the knowledge that in our free society, devoted to the ideal of individual worth, he was not deprived, of his free will to make his own choice, in his hour of trial, to handle his own case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To encourage individuals to make their own determinations as to which laws they will obey and which they will permit themselves as a matter of conscience to disobey is to invite chaos. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable. Toleration of such conduct would not be democratic, as [the proponents of jury nullification] claim, but inevitably anarchic.”
4 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.