United States v. Dominguez Benitez’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1,270 federal appellate · 50 district · 599 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,206 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Puckett v. United States (2009), United States v. Mares (2005)
1,270 federal appellate · 50 district · 599 state decisions — followed in 26 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. Dominguez Benitez (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Boykin v. Alabama
Cited together with United States v. Olano · United States v. Vonn · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Booker · United States v. Cotton
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 4,206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.”
54 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake's effect on the proceeding. See Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U. S. 279 , 309-310 (1991) (giving examples). "Otherwise, relief for error is tied in some way to prejudicial effect, and the standard phrased as `error that affects substantial rights,' used in Rule 52, has previously been taken to mean error with a prejudicial effect on the outcome of a judicial proceeding. See Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U. S. 750 (1946). To affect "substantial rights,”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake's effect on the proceeding. See Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U. S. 279 , 309-310 (1991) (giving examples).”
28 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.