Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 490 U.S. 488 - Maleng v. Cook

Maleng v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

1,803
cited by 1,803 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

604 federal appellate · 143 district · 202 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,803 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Spencer v. Kemna (1998), Custis v. United States (1994)

604 federal appellate · 143 district · 202 state decisions — followed in 22 states

683019891990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedCook v. Maleng (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · United States v. Tucker · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky

Cited together with Jones v. Cunningham · Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss · Strickland v. Washington · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Spencer v. Kemna

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 1,803 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[O]nce the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual 'in custody' for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.”
    72 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “express[ed] no view on the extent to which [a prior] conviction itself may be subject to challenge in [an] attack upon [current] sentences which it was used to enhance.”
    10 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.