Commonwealth v. Goldman’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2015
2 district · 8 state decisions
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
Relies on Cuyler v. Sullivan · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Commonwealth v. Adams · Commonwealth v. Moon
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the foregoing reasons, I find that the materials submitted by the defendant in support of this motion do not raise a substantial question of possible incompetency, i.e., a substantial question whether the defendant ‘[had] sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he [had] a rational, as well as factual understanding, of the proceedings against him.’ Because no substantial question as to the defendant’s competency arose at trial, the trial judge did not have a duty to order an examination over the defendant’s objection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rosenthal v. O'Brien
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.