United States v. Dougherty’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 763 · 1987
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably United States v. Barahona (1993), United States v. Nusraty (1989)
42 federal appellate · 5 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. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 7 U.S.C. § 2024
Relies on Colorado v. Connelly · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · United States v. Russell · Hampton v. United States
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The evidence in this case established that Dougherty unlawfully acquired $950 in food stamps in exchange for $480 in cash.... In effect, there was a loss to the United States Department of Agriculture in the amount of $470. As a result, the United States, as dispenser of the food stamps, would be the aggrieved party for purposes of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3651 . We conclude, therefore, that the district court properly awarded restitution to the United States.”
1 later decision 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.