Reynolds v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 796 · 1996
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably McGregor v. Gibson (2001), 750 So. 2d 832 - State v. Snyder (1999)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Medina v. California · United States v. Owens
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A 'meaningful' determination [of competence retrospectively] is possible where the state of the record, together with such additional evidence as may be relevant and available, permits an accurate assessment of the defendant's condition at the time of the original state proceedings.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen determining whether a meaningful hearing may be held, we look to the existence of contemporaneous medical evidence, the recollections of non-experts who had the opportunity to interact with the defendant during the relevant period, statements by the defendant in the trial transcript, and the existence of medical records. The passage of time is not an insurmountable obstacle if sufficient contemporaneous information is available.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To safeguard this due process guarantee [of competence to stand trial], the Supreme Court has established a separate procedural due process right to a competency hearing.”). And while not necessarily embodying a constitutional command, federal law provides that at civil and criminal competency hearings,”
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.