United States v. Dobson’s Empirical Analysis
585 F.2d 55 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp. (1980), Hopper v. United States Parole Commission (1983)
9 federal appellate · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Singleton v. Wulff · United States v. Mauro · Central South Carolina Chapter v. Martin · System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corp.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] pretrial detainee ‘has no immediate interest in any institutional treatment or program of rehabilitation’ [citations omitted]. This lack of interest obviously stems from the uncertain and contingent nature of a confinement which is dependent both upon the outcome of trial and the imposition of a jail sentence .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Hence even though we recognize that the basis for a parolee’s detention is the underlying sentence from which he has been paroled, until such time that the parole violator is recommitted after a hearing, and his incarceration thereby made certain and fixed as to duration, no term of imprisonment can be said to have commenced or resumed. In this respect a parole violator is no different than a pretrial detainee who is merely awaiting trial and who, until conviction and sentencing, cannot commence service of a term of imprisonment ... In short, just as pretrial incarceration is a transitory and impermanent state, incarceration pursuant to a parole violation warrant is just as transitory and impermanent. Both place the prisoner in no more than a ‘holding pattern.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“definable period of time during which a prisoner must be confined in order to complete or satisfy the prison term or sentence”
2 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.