Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 464 - Williams v. Bordenkircher

Williams v. Bordenkircher’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 464 · 1983

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Mills v. Commonwealth (1999), United States v. Calvin B. Murphy (1997)

31 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

2101983199020002010decided

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 · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · Gooding v. United States

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

  1. “[w]hether a reasonable judge, situated as was the trial court judge whose failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing is being reviewed, should have experienced doubt with respect to competency to stand trial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Baldwin v. Scroggy · Paul Bock v. Ben G. Bower, Superintendant of the Hocking Correctional Facility
  2. “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as [ ] factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Paul Bock v. Ben G. Bower, Superintendant of the Hocking Correctional Facility · Victor E. Doyle v. United States
  3. “[t]he constitutional obligation to hold an evidentiary hearing depends heavily on the factual circumstances of each case”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. State v. Kiser · City of Columbus v. Cardinal, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004)

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.