Neil Phillips v. Carl G. Hocker, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 395 · 1973
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Leland v. Oregon · Davis 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.
““We also noted that Leland was specifically mentioned in [Winship], and we find no intimation in [Winship] that Leland should be questioned as to its holding on the nonconstitutional aspect of the insanity defense. We believe that Leland remains viable and conclude that the first issue urged by appellant presents no constitutional question reviewable in these proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Buzynski“(i)ts procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar. * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Lockhart
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.