Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.3d 1155 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

113 F.3d 1155 · 1997

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Nguyen v. Reynolds B (1997), McGregor v. Gibson (2001)

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

220199720002010decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Florida v. Bostick · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Godinez v. Moran

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'evidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`[O]nce doubt is raised, the court cannot dispel it simply by relying on contrary evidence. The protections of an adversary proceeding must be afforded the defendant.'”
    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.