Van Tran v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Atkins v. Virginia (2002), State v. Nelson (2002)
3 federal appellate · 23 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 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane · Murray v. Carrier
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"refers to how effectively individuals cope with common life demands and how well they meet the standards of personal independence expected of someone in their particular age group, socio-cultural background, and community setting". . . . As discussed, a mentally retarded person will have significant limitations in at least two of the following basic skills: "communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety." Influences on adaptive functioning may include the individual's "education, motivation, personality characteristics, and the mental disorders and general medical conditions that may coexist with [m]ental [r]etardation."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Black v. Bell · COLEMEN v. State“as evidenced by a functional intelligence quotient (I.Q.) of 70 or below.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. COLEMEN v. State · Coleman v. State“applicable criteria are those presently set forth by statute: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning as evidenced by a functional intelligence quotient (I.Q.) of seventy or below; (2) deficits in adaptive behavior; and (3) mental retardation manifested during the developmental period, or by eighteen years of age.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. COLEMEN v. State · Coleman v. State
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.