Adams v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 1356 · 1985
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Dugger v. Adams (1989), Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Et Al. (1986)
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 Strickland v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he legal test for mental competency is whether, at the time of trial and sentencing, the petitioner had 'sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding' and whether he had 'a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“clear and convincing evidence to create a 'real, substantial and legitimate doubt as to [his] mental capacity ... to meaningfully participate and cooperate with counsel....'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Binding precedent fully supports the petitioner's contention that the procedural default rule of Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), does not operate to preclude a defendant who failed to request a competency hearing at trial or pursue a claim of incompetency on direct appeal from contesting his competency to stand trial and be sentenced through post-conviction proceedings. See Zapata v. Estelle , 588 F.2d 1017 , 1021 (5th Cir. 1979); Nathaniel v. Estelle , 493 F.2d 794 , 798 (5th Cir. 1974); Bruce v. Estelle , 483 F.2d 1031 , 1037 (5th Cir. 1973). Indeed, as the Supreme Court stated in Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), `it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently "waive" his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.' Id . at 384, 86 S.Ct. at 841 ; Zapata v. Estelle , supra, 588 F.2d at 1021 ; Bruce v. Estelle , supra, 483 F.2d at 1037 . Therefore, the district court below erred in holding that the petitioner was procedurally barred from pursuing *Page 908 a claim of mental incompetency in a federal habeas corpus proceeding."”
5 later decisions 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.