Skip to main content
· 7/21/2006

United States v. Dorcely, Daniel

Citations

  • 454 F.3d 366
  • 372 U.S. App. D.C. 170
  • 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18308
  • 2006 WL 2034245

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[C]arefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Garland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.