114 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 631 - State v. Benn (1993), 118 Wash. 2d 876 - Matter of Personal Restraint of Rice (1992)
32 state decisions
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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Townsend v. Sain · Goss v. Lopez · Pate v. Robinson · Ake v. Oklahoma
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]ithout a substantial threshold requirement, the eleventh hour petitions asserting insanity would be encouraged because the death row petitioner would know that the mere filing of a concluso-ry petition would result in a stay of execution. Placing no initial burden on the petitioner is an invitation to specious insanity claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is particularly important that these procedures be followed in death penalty competency claims. Federal habeas corpus review of a death penalty case is nearly inevitable. As the [United States] Supreme Court has observed, in a habeas corpus proceeding, ‘even a single federal judge may overturn the judgment of the highest court of a State insofar as it deals with the application of the United States Constitution or laws to the facts in question.’ [Citation omitted.] As we have previously noted, however, the federal habeas court will accord state court findings of fact a preT sumption of correctness, and those factual contentions may not be relitigated in federal court. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Van Tran v. State“This burden may be met by the submission of affidavits, depositions, medical reports, or other credible evidence sufficient to demonstrate that there exists a genuine question regarding petitioner’s present competency. In most circumstances, the affidavits, depositions, or medical reports attached to the prisoner’s petition should be from psychiatrists, psychologists, or other mental health professionals. If the trial court is satisfied there exists a genuine disputed issue regarding the prisoner’s present competency, then a hearing should be held.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Thompson v. State
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.