Williams v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 193 · 1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Douglas v. People of State of California · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Ross v. Moffitt · United States v. Security Industrial Bank
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not deny an indigent [person] an adeguate or meaningful opportunity to present his [or her] incompetency, but instead safeguard the indigent's right that he [or she] will not be tried while incompetent,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fox v. NHSP Warden“does not authorize a second examination at state expense. Instead [the statute] provides that a second examination is to be made by a physician, chosen and paid by the party making the request.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fox v. NHSP Warden“the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment does not reguire absolute eguality or precisely egual advantages, as long as the differences do not amount to a denial of due process or invidious discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fox v. NHSP Warden
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.