Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 478 SO2D 1043 - Billiot v. State

Billiot v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2005
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

120198519902000decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Estelle v. Smith · Trop v. Dulles · Michigan v. Clifford

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

  1. “failed to establish to a reasonable probability that he is presently insane.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall be deemed insane if the court finds the convict does not have sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, what he was tried for, the purpose of his punishment, the impending fate which awaits him, and a sufficient understanding to know any fact which might exist which would make his punishment unjust or unlawful and the intelligence requisite to convey such information to his attorney or the court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It follows in these circumstances that the action of the trial court in determining that Billiot was sane and competent is also res judicata as to the issue of his present sanity, as the matter is raised in this petition. These issues were thoroughly litigated at trial and upon direct appeal and may not be litigated again by way of post conviction writ.”
    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.