Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 F.2d 548 - United States v. Doss

United States v. Doss’s Empirical Analysis

545 F.2d 548 · 1976

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
November 2003
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2003

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

501976198019902000decided

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. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Calandra · Costello v. United States · Lawn v. United States · Blair v. United States · United States v. Mandujano

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

  1. “Where a substantial purpose of calling an indicted defendant before a grand jury is to question him secretly and without counsel present without his being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation about a crime for which he stands already indicted, the proceeding is an abuse of process which violates both the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Indictments for perjurious answers given in such a proceeding must be quashed because the proceeding itself is void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “No such result, of course, would flow (absent facts not presented here) from calling a defendant indicted for one crime to appear and give evidence before a grand jury upon a wholly different and separable offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he question addressed to Doss which the jury found he answered falsely under Count III of the indictment was totally unrelated to the offenses for which he had been indicted[ 5 ] (Footnote added)”
    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.