Powell v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

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

1. “Petitioner was indicted on April 18, 1985. Less than a week later, on April 23, 1985, petitioner’s defense attorneys filed a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (“NGRI”), which triggered three court-ordered psychiatric evaluations. The trial court appointed Dr. Emmet Cooper, Dr. Nancy Schmidt-goessling, and the Court Psychiatric Center to conduct evaluations of petitioner pursuant to the NGRI plea. Dr. Emmet Cooper, a psychiatrist, was called by defense counsel during petitioner’s case in chief [and during the penalty phase of the trial]. He testified that petitioner suffered from a borderline personality disorder.... But Dr. Cooper could not say that petitioner suffered from a mental disease or defect. Dr. Nancy Schmidtgoessling, a clinical psychologist, testified for the prosecution during its rebuttal case and was also called by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial.... She also testified, however, that petitioner never suffered from a mental disease or defect, that he was aware of the quality and wrongfulness of his action, and that he was able to conform his conduct. Dr. Teresito Alquizola, a physician and psychiatrist, testified for the prosecution during its rebuttal case.... Dr. Alquizola testified that petitioner did not suffer from a mental disease or defect, and that at the time of the offense, he possessed the capacity to know the wrongfulness of his actions and, to a large extent, was able to conform his conduct.... In addition to the testimony g”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Hook v. Anderson

2. “the length of the requested delay; whether other continuances had been requested and granted; the convenience or inconvenience to the parties, witnesses, counsel and the court; whether the delay was for legitimate reasons or whether it was “dilatory, purposeful or contrived;” whether the defendant contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the request; whether denying the continuance will result in identifiable prejudice to defendant’s case; and the complexity of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 403 F. App'x 24 - United States v. Troy Parker

3. “applies to basic, primary or historical facts and implicit findings of fact, logically deduced because of the trial court's ability to adjudge the witnesses' demeanor and credibility. The presumption does not apply to mixed questions of law and fact, or questions of law, both of which are reviewed de novo .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Nagy