Case Citator › Dillon v. United States

Dillon v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
560 U.S. 817
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
2016
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Dillon v. United States has one confirmed limited treatment, and all 40 flagged citations have been read. United States v. Sawyer declined to apply Dillon's rule that the Sentencing Commission's policy statements bind courts when a later policy statement would override a statutory mandatory minimum.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

40 later cases cite Dillon v. United States; 40 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Dillon v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The district court declined to extend Dillon's binding-policy-statement rule to a later guideline that it found conflicted with a statutory mandatory minimum.

    United States v. Sawyer · United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama · filed

    Here is the crux of the issue; Dillon provides that the Sentencing Commission’s directives in § 1B1.10 are binding, but the new § lB1.10(c), at bottom, directs sentencing courts to ignore Congress’s statutorily imposed mandatory minimum sentences. ... Where, as here, there is a conflict between a guideline policy statement and a federal statute, the guideline must give way.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dillon v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace