Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 762 F.2d 674 - United States v. Dion

United States v. Dion’s Empirical Analysis

762 F.2d 674 · 1985

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably United States v. Dion (1986), United States v. Cannon (1996)

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

300198519902000decided

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 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (§ 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 668 · 16 U.S.C. § 703 (Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 704 · 42 U.S.C. § 1996 (American Indian Religious Freedom Act)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Wainwright v. Witt · United States v. Russell

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

  1. “An individual 'cannot claim he was entrapped simply because he ... could not resist the substantial sums of money to be made.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “had not merely given [the defendant] an opportunity to take or kill an eagle but [had] encouraged [him] to do so by the agents' repeated direct and indirect solicitation over a nearly two-year period.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[h]owever, in some cases, it may be that the unusual poverty of the defendant or other problems peculiar to the defendant must be considered in determining predisposition.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.