Dodson v. Zelez’s Empirical Analysis
917 F.2d 1250 · 1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter (1993), Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1996)
25 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 836 · 10 U.S.C. § 852 · 10 U.S.C. § 867A · 10 U.S.C. § 876 · 10 U.S.C. § 918
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Teague v. Lane · Crowell v. Benson · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor · Saffle v. Parks
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) The asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension ... (2) The issue must be one of law rather than of disputed fact already determined by the military tribunals ... (3) Military considerations may warrant different treatment of constitutional claims ... (4) The military courts must give adequate consideration to the issues involved and apply proper legal standards.” (Citations omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension; (2) The issue must be one of law rather than of disputed fact already determined by the military tribunals; (3) Military considerations may warrant different treatment of constitutional claims; and (4) The military courts must give adequate consideration to the issues involved and apply proper legal standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Military court-martial convictions are subject to collateral review by federal civil courts on petitions for writs of ha-beas corpus where it is asserted that the court-martial acted without jurisdiction, or that substantial constitutional rights have been violated, or that exceptional circumstances have been presented which are so fundamentally defective as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Consideration by the military of such issues will not preclude judicial review for the military must accord to its personnel the protections of basic constitutional rights essential to a fair trial and the guarantee of due process of law. The scope of review for violations of constitutional rights, however, is more narrow than in civil cases. Thus federal courts should differentiate between questions of fact and law and review only questions of law which present substantial constitutional issues. Accordingly, they may not retry the facts or reevaluate the evidence, their function in this regard being limited to determining whether the military has fully and fairly considered contested factual issues. Moreover, military law is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law governing civilian society so that what is permissible within the military may be constitutionally impermissible outside it. Therefore, when the military courts have determined that factors peculiar to the military require a different application of constitutional standards, federal courts are reluctan”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Watada v. Head
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.