Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 627 F.2d 1300 - United States v. Wright

United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

627 F.2d 1300 · 1980

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
6
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2000

3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

60198019902000decided

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 Faretta v. California · North Carolina v. Alford · Dusky v. United States · O'Connor v. Donaldson · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.

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

  1. “"* * * No defendant, whether acting pro se or through counsel, can restrain the court from considering whether the insanity defense should be raised. "* * * "We cannot abdicate to the defendant the judicial duty to explore the issue once sufficient questions are raised. Nonetheless, our reasoning does not disparage the importance of the defendant's preference to avoid the insanity defense." 627 F.2d at 1310-11 . (Footnote omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * By focusing attention on the quality of the defendant's pleading decision [the question of whether defendant's opposition to the defense is voluntary and intelligent], the government proposal tends to obscure society's obligation to determine blame-worthiness before imposing sanctions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he assessment of grounds for interposing the insanity defense is so factbound, so dependent on nuances of experts['] credibility and the defendant's presentation of himself, that the familiarity of the trial court is central to a sound decision.”
    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.