Bundy v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
816 F.2d 564 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 54 Cal. 4th 668 - People v. Lightsey (2012), Douglas v. Woodford (2003)
6 federal appellate · 5 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Erickson v. United States · Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Et Al.
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.
“[t]he standard of proof is high. The facts must 'positively, unequivocally and clearly generate' the legitimate doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Card v. Dugger · Card v. Singletary“' Dusky , 362 U.S. at 402 , 80 S.Ct. at 789 , he cannot blindly accept his client's demand that his competency not be challenged. See Thompson v. Wainwright , 787 F.2d 1447 , 1451 (11th Cir. 1986) (defense counsel cannot 'blindly follow' defendant's instructions concerning his defense, especially where counsel suspects defendant's judgment impaired by 'mental difficulties').”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.' 'Whether the defendant believed he was competent to stand trial is irrelevant for, if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, his belief that he is able to do so is without import.' Bundy v. Dugger , 816 F.2d 564 , 566, n. 2 (11th Cir. 1987).”
2 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.