Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 854 SW2D 742 - Stanford v. Commonwealth

Stanford v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Stanford v. Parker (2001), Perdue v. Commonwealth (1996)

4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

160199320002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Enmund v. Florida · Morgan v. Illinois · Tison v. Arizona · Buchanan v. Kentucky

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

  1. “Affirmative allegations contained in the answer shall be treated as controverted or avoided of record. If the answer raises a material issue of fact that cannot be determined on the face of the record the court shall grant a prompt hearing and, if the movant is without counsel of record and if financially unable to employ counsel, shall upon specific written request by the movant appoint counsel to represent the movant in the proceeding, including appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A] hearing is required only if there is an issue of fact which cannot be determined on the face of the record. If there is no hearing, then no findings are required.... [T]he record refutes the specific claims which are the bases of appellant's contentions that he should have had a hearing and findings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Even in a capital case, an RCr 11.42 movant is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.