Lay v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis
860 F.3d 1307 · 2017
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Faretta v. California · Bruton v. United States · Lockett v. Ohio · Pate v. Robinson
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A procedural competency claim is based upon a trial court's alleged failure to hold a competency hearing, or an adequate competency hearing, while a substantive competency claim is founded on the allegation that an individual was tried and convicted while, in fact, incompetent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. NOLEN v. STATE“[o]ur review [as to such a claim] is limited to the evidence that was made available to the state trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. Royal
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.