209 F. Supp. 2d 950 - Ward v. Sternes’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[h]is individual answers to questions posed to him by physicians, his attorney, or the court may have the semblance of coherence and validity, in the sense that they are possible answers to the questions asked. But taken together, they make no sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ward v. Sternes“No, I didn't know. I just said yes. That's all I know. I didn't know what I can remember, what they saying, so just said yes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Sternes“I don't know. I'm trying to find something to tell me what I know it is, but I couldn't understand what it is.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Sternes
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.