Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 354 F.2d 745 - Bartlett v. United States

Bartlett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

354 F.2d 745 · 1966

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably McCarthy v. United States (1969), Commonwealth Ex Rel. West v. Rundle (1968)

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

220196619701980199020002010decided

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 Wales ex rel. Wales Trucking Co. v. United States · Isserman v. Ethics Committee of Essex County Bar Ass'n · Moulthrope v. Matus · United States v. Davis · Friedman 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[I]s entitled to consider all of the information that has been presented to the defendant from whatever source, including his counsel, statements made in open court proceedings, personal knowledge of the defendant, and any other factor that would have any relationship to the plea. No particular rote or ritual need be observed by the trial court. United States v. Davis, 212 F.2d 264 (7 Cir. 1954). This is especially true when the Court through prior proceedings has become informed of sufficient facts to clearly determine that the defendant is aware of the charges and that the plea is understandingly made.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he Court must be satisfied that the waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly made, which would include information being supplied from any reliable source respecting the nature of the charges against him, his rights and the possible penalties applicable to the charges made.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.