Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.2d 721 - United States v. Masthers

United States v. Masthers’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.2d 721 · 1976

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Godinez v. Moran (1993), Abbott v. Sullivan (1990)

30 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 states

27019761980199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 41 · 18 U.S.C. § 4251 · 18 U.S.C. § 8 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 294

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · McCarthy v. United States · Dusky v. United States · Williams v. People of State of New York

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

  1. “[I]t is apparent that the standard Rule 11 colloquy may prove an inadequate measure of the validity of a plea proffered by a defendant of questionable mental competence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A diagnosis of mental retardation is based on multiple criteria, including measured intelligence (usually quantified as Intelligence Quotient), adaptive behavior level (sometimes quantified as a Social Quotient), and medical classification.” United States v. Masthers, 539 F.2d 721 , 724 n. 16 (D.C.Cir.1976) (quoting Roos,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him [and ] to assist properly in his defense.”
    1 later decision 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.