United States v. Dotson’s Empirical Analysis
817 F.2d 1127 · 1987
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Dunn (1988), United States v. Hiland (1990)
64 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Rakas v. Illinois · Fahy v. Connecticut · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[a]n affidavit of a juror is admissible to show that the verdict delivered was not that actually agreed upon .. . but a juror may not subsequently impeach a verdict by stating how it was reached.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his is indicative, and based on my experience shows to me, that he willfully and intentionally increased his income knowing full well that he had not reported the taxes due thereon.”
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.