Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 679 F.2d 1209 - Stacy v. Love

Stacy v. Love’s Empirical Analysis

679 F.2d 1209 · 1982

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Gall v. Parker (2000), United States v. Steele (1984)

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

190198219902000decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Burks v. United States · Rose v. Lundy · Malloy v. Hogan

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

  1. “It is well-settled that an appellate court considers, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the record is simply devoid of any evidence that Stacy had the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Where, as here, the state bears the burden of proving the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt and fails to present any evidence which addresses an essential element of the legal test of insanity, a conviction is repugnant to due process and must be reversed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the defendant was not “suffering from a mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime,” or (2) the illness proved did not “prevent his knowing the wrongfulness of his act” and did not “render him substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law he is charged with violating.””
    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.