5 Kentucky opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Mason, L., Apltgreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 671 (Pa. 2015) (discussing options for intellectual disability claimant who disagrees with counsel’s choice to pursue Atkins defense). | 1 | 1 |
IN RE: Glenn Holladaygreen2 sentences2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 | 1 | 1 |
Donald Bennett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Kenneth Wayne Morris, Applicantgreen2 sentences2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 2005Similarly, KRS 504.100(1) provides that a mental examination and evidentiary hearing is required “[i]f ... the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial....” In the context of whether a defendant is entitled to file a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus to assert an Atkins claim, federal courts have applied the definition of “pri-ma facie showing” often used in deciding whether to grant a successive petition raising other issues, i.e., “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration.” In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bush ex rel. Bush v. O'Daniel
green
1 sentence2026Bush v. O’Daniel, 700 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. 1985). 3 Upon determining that the trial court’s denial of Atkins’s motion was entered after the circuit clerk had already filed Atkins’s pleadings, the Court of Appeals concluded the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal. 2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Atkins also appealed the denial of her other motions. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brumfield v. Cain
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 309, 135 S.Ct. 2269 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brumfield v. Cain
green
2 sentences2024To support this assertion, Woodall cites to Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015); however, the procedural posture of Brumfield is sufficiently different from the posture of Woodall’s case to reject its application. 2024To support this assertion, Woodall cites to Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015); however, the procedural posture of Brumfield is sufficiently different from the posture of Woodall’s case to reject its application. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.