Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 F.3d 338 - West v. Bell

West v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

242 F.3d 338 · 2001

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. · McFarland v. Scott · Rees v. Peyton

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

  1. “Mr. Reid has clearly indicated that he has no desire to pursue any post-conviction remedies. The reasons given for this choice — that he has lost confidence in the judicial system, and that he has been convicted of seven “egregious” homicides — are certainly not irrational. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has observed: “We must not assume that it is impossible for even a death-sentenced prisoner to recognize the justice of his sentence and to acquiesce in it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “At most, counsel have shown some conceivable difficulties in [the inmate’s] mental health, but no evidence that ... the prisoner does not have “capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or ... suffer[s] from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “‘Once [his] competence was put in issue, [the defendant] could not waive his right to have his competence determined.’ ”) (quoting Harper v. Parker, 177 F.3d 567 , 571 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1141 , 119 S.Ct. 2015 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1029 (1999) (first alteration in original)); Horace v. Wainwright, 781 F.2d 1558 , 1563 (11th Cir.) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.