United States v. Ives’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 1002 · 1978
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably Chavez v. United States (1981), United States v. Mills (1979)
31 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · Central South Carolina Chapter v. Martin
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant's bizarre actions or statements, or counsel's statement that the defendant is incapable of cooperating in his own defense, or even psychiatric testimony need not alone raise sufficient doubt.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence ... the United States Attorney has reasonable cause to believe that a person charged with an offense ... may be presently insane or otherwise [ ] mentally incompetent ..., he shall file a motion for a judicial determination of such mental competency ..., setting forth the ground for such belief____ Upon such a motion or upon a similar motion in behalf of the accused, or upon its own motion, the court shall cause the accused ... tobe examined as to his mental condition by at least one qualified psychiatrist____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on a subsequent § 4244 motion rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Absent (an) abuse of that discretion, the determination will not be overturned.”
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.