Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 657 F.2d 140 - United States v. Dellinger

United States v. Dellinger’s Empirical Analysis

657 F.2d 140 · 1981

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
November 2005
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2005 · most notably Hirabayashi v. United States (1987), United States v. Keane (1988)

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

240198119902000decided

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

Relies on Illinois v. Allen · United State v. Morgan · United States v. Addonizio · Walker v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Mayer

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

  1. ““Continuation of litigation after final judgment and exhaustion or waiver of any statutory right of review should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy [coram nobis] only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “for errors of fact ... in those cases where the errors [are] of the most fundamental character, that is, such as rendered the proceeding itself invalid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it is probable that a different result would have occurred had the error not been made.”
    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.