Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 231 - Dugan v. United States

Dugan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 231 · 1975

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
states following
November 1998
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 1998 · most notably United States v. Peter A. Crusco and Phillip A. Cimmino. Appeal of Phillip Cimmino (1976), United States v. Coronado (1977)

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

290197519801990decided

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. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Santobello v. New York · Bryan v. United States · Hand 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is axiomatic (under Santobello ) that no guilty plea that has been induced by an unkept plea bargain can be permitted to stand.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “While allowing a petitioner to obtain an evidentiary hearing by merely alleging an unkept plea bargain would enable a wilful affiant to provoke as to one conviction endless hearings for each time he could swear that someone at the last hearing suborned false testimony, such rationale for denying a hearing does not control here. See Bryan v. United States, 492 F.2d at 780 . When the petitioner presents affidavits from third parties, the danger of repeated hearings no longer exists. . . . When petitioner goes beyond mere allegations by presenting credible affidavits that raise a substantial inference that an unkept bargain was in fact made, § 2255 requires an evidentiary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “are totally uncorroborated. In Dugan the petitioner submitted two affidavits confirming that specific promises were made by both state and federal officials that he would receive a sentence of only four years. Id. at 233. As the majority opinion points out, the affidavit of Agent Clark supports McCord's allegations only so far as confirming that discussions were held and”
    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.