United States v. Dothard’s Empirical Analysis
666 F.2d 498 · 1982
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Huddleston v. United States (1988), State v. Kulmac (1994)
78 federal appellate · 18 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)
Relies on Michelson v. United States · Santoni v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · United States v. Diecidue
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations . . ." and they were committed in a novel and 'peculiar manner'."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Arthur · Bolden v. State“[T]he question of whether a defendant actually committed a prior extrinsic act is a jury question, unless the court is convinced that the jury could not reasonably find that the defendant committed the alleged prior act.”
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.