Allen v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
368 F.3d 1220 · 2004
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2020 · most notably Bland v. Sirmons (2006), United States v. Rodriguez-Felix (2006)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Dusky v. United States · Ake v. Oklahoma · Bell Warden v. Cone · Godinez v. Moran
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] substantive competency claim is founded on the allegation that an individual was tried and convicted while, in fact, incompetent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial, the trial court must consider whether defendant 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the ‘contrary to’ clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases, or if it decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court would] have done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. The court may grant relief under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from our decisions but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular case. The focus of the latter inquiry is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and ... an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Franklin
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.