Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 F.2d 949 - Steinsvik v. Vinzant

Steinsvik v. Vinzant’s Empirical Analysis

640 F.2d 949 · 1981

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
January 2015
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Boag v. Raines (1985), United States v. Parra-Ibanez (1991)

26 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1601981199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Pate v. Robinson · Sanders v. United States · Blackledge v. Allison · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo

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

  1. “Even if the evidence before the trial judge was insufficient to raise a good faith doubt with respect to [a defendant's] competency, he would still be entitled to [a hearing] if it now appears that he was in fact incompetent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Certainly the mere fact that psychiatric help was felt to be desirable as an aid to rehabilitation cannot be said to create a bona fide doubt of [petitioner's] capacity to participate intelligently in the proceedings facing him....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he possibility of deportation is not a direct consequence of a guilty plea, and the sentencing court is not required to advise an alien defendant that he could be subject to deportation as a result of the plea.”
    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.