Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 400 A2D 322 - Bennett v. United States

Bennett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2016

8 state decisions

4019791980199020002010decided

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 Drope v. Missouri · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · In re Vendo Co. · Hearst v. United States · Whalem 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If it appears to a court having jurisdiction of: (1) a person arrested or indicted for, or charged by information with, an offense ... that, from the court's own observations or from prima facie evidence submitted to it and prior to the imposition of sentence ... such person ... is of unsound mind or is mentally incompetent so as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense, the court may order the accused committed to the District of Columbia General Hospital or other mental hospital designated by the court, for such reasonable period as the court may determine for examination and observation and for care and treatment if such is necessary by the psychiatric staff of said hospital....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “This is not a case in which appellant faced his trial with a history of mental illness or where disturbing factors concerning his mental condition surfaced immediately before trial. Nor is it a case in which the record reflected such bizarre behavior during the course of the trial that the court had a duty to inquire, sua sponte, into appellant’s competency.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[C]ompetency determinations are within the discretion of the trial judge and are entitled to great deference. A finding of competency will not be set aside upon review unless it is clearly arbitrary or erroneous.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). . Gilliam was diagnosed with”
    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.