Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 P2D 494 - Lambert v. State

Lambert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
4
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Hatch v. Oklahoma (1995), Hain v. Gibson (2002)

6 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

190199420002010decided

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 · Jackson v. Denno · Colorado v. Connelly · Hamling v. United States · Dusky 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... it is not enough for the district judge to find that `the defendant [is] oriented to time and place and [has] some recollection of events,' but the `test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “without proper notice is without merit. The Information contained the essential elements of the crimes charged and was sufficient to bar future prosecution for those offenses. Application of the transferred intent doctrine directly related to the relevant mens rea element of Appellant's Count 2 charge of malice murder. The application of the doctrine did not create a new and different crime. Moreover, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was misled----to his detriment----by the Information. Based on the circumstances of this case as well as the record, Appellant cannot”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “he would never have willingly admitted to the jury that he committed a crime which would have resulted in his receiving the death penalty.”
    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.