Lafferty v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 1546 · 1991
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Menzies (1994), Lundgren v. Mitchell (2006)
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“competence is a factual issue, ... [t]he content of the standard of competency is ... a question of law which we review de novo”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a state court determination is fairly supported by the record, and thus presumed correct, [the] petitioner in a federal evidentiary hearing may nonetheless prevail by shouldering the burden of establishing 'by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.'”
3 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.