Woolard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 84 · 1949
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1972
13 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Uveges v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Hemans v. United States
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is settled law that the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution does not require that counsel be forced upon a competent defendant by a court, and that a defendant charged with a federal offense who is aware of his constitutional privilege to have counsel appointed to represent him, may nevertheless waive such right. Adams v. U. S. ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 , 143 A.L.R. 435 ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; Ossenfort v. Pulaski, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 246 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.