United States v. DIPP’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 1323 · 1978
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably United States v. Gordon (1988), 51 Cal. 3d 395 - People v. Hedgecock (1990)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
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. § 1623
Relies on United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Ashe v. Swenson · Blackledge v. Perry
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An identification of the issues in the two actions for the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify invoking the doctrine; (2) an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was ‘litigated’ in the first case; and (3) an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case. United States v. Hernandez, 572 F.2d 218, 220 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Dipp, 581 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1071 , 99 S.Ct. 841 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979); United States v. Sarno, 596 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1979).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he issue [of materiality] is a question to be decided by the court and is not an issue for the jury to determine. Since this is so, evidence bearing solely on materiality should be received outside the presence of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Vap“[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to criminal cases as part of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.”
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.