Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 677 F.2d 667 - Hinkle v. Scurr

Hinkle v. Scurr’s Empirical Analysis

677 F.2d 667 · 1982

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2002

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

80198219902000decided

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

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York

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

  1. “Whether a person charged with a crime is mentally competent to stand trial is a discrete question, governed by different medical and legal standards from the question of mental responsibility. To be competent to stand trial a defendant must have, at the time of his trial, "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding — and ... a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” A claim that the defendant was not criminally responsible, on the other hand, is unconcerned with the defendant’s understanding of his situation at the time of trial, but is directed entirely to his capacity to understand and to control his conduct at the time of the commission of the offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In this circuit, the evaluation of a petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel involves a two-step process. Rinehart v. Brewer, 561 F.2d 126 (8th Cir. 1977). The petitioner must first show that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances. United States v. East er, 539 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 844 [ 98 S.Ct. 145 , 54 L.Ed.2d 109 ] (1977). Second, the petitioner must demonstrate that he was materially prejudiced in the defense of his case by the actions or inactions of his counsel. Nevels v. Parratt, 596 F.2d 344 (8th Cir. 1979); Morrow v. Parratt, 574 F.2d 411 (8th Cir. 1978); Rinehart v. Brewer, supra.”
    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.