William v. Nye’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Colorado v. Connelly · Dusky v. United States · Oregon v. Mathiason · Soberon v. United States · California v. Beheler
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.
“and killed Richard after a two-year struggle against a desire for sexual activity with the boy. At this point, William, who, as indicated, had previously stated that he did not want to see an attorney, stated that he did want an attorney, and further questioning stopped. 21 As concerns William's pre-Miranda statements to the police, the federal district court found that William was not”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. William v. Nye“extremely close case of a criminal defendant whose mental condition presented severe intellectual limitations and whose emotional and cognitive immaturity presented particular concerns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. William v. Nye“applied the appropriate standard of whether petitioner's mental condition would significantly interfere with his communication with his attorneys.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. William v. Nye
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.