Cook v. Maleng’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.2d 616 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012
9 federal appellate ·
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
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Carafas v. J · Peyton v. Rowe · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Lane v. Williams · Vereen v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“alleging that it was invalid because respondent had not been given a competency hearing, even though there was reasonable doubt as to his competency to stand trial. Respondent also alleged that the 1958 conviction had been used illegally to enhance his 1978 state sentences, which he had not yet begun to serve. * The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that respondent was not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maleng v. Cook“to attack an earlier conviction used to enhance the sentence for the later conviction. In this case, the record is unclear as to whether the 1984 conviction was enhanced by the conviction sought to be vacated under Sec. 2255. 7 Even if the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because Cook's 1958 conviction lengthened his [subsequent] 1978 [state court] sentence, Cook is 'in custody' for the purposes of a habeas corpus attack on the 1958 conviction.”
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.