693 So. 2d 1333 - Dunn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

cited by 36 later decisions

states following

June 2012

most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State (2005), Smith v. State (1998)

36 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

Relies on Dusky v. United States · Godinez v. Moran · Scott v. Illinois · 430 So. 2d 832 - Read v. State · 644 So. 2d 1235 - Duplantis v. State

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

“[W]hen the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Benish v. State · 755 So. 2d 2 - Wilson v. State
“This Court in Metcalf [ v. State, 629 So.2d 558 (Miss.1993),] wrote of its displeasure of defendants who would use their right to refuse counsel in an attempt to play a `cat and mouse' game with the court, or as some strategy to place the trial judge in a position where `in moving along the business of the court, the judge appears to be arbitrarily depriving the defendant of Counsel.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Smith v. State · 724 So. 2d 280 - Smith v. State
“The standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has `sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 812 So. 2d 1056 - Taylor v. State · 906 So. 2d 846 - Busick v. State

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.