Vargas v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.3d 1161 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Francis S. v. Stone (2000), Garrison v. Colvin (2014)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Sumner v. Mata · Barefoot v. Estelle · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Rees v. Peyton
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A GAF score is a rough estimate of an individual’s psychological, social, and occupational functioning used to reflect the individual’s need for treatment.” Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 , 1160 n. 2 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting Vargas v. Lambert, 159 F.3d 1161 , 1164 n. 2 (9th Cir.1998)). GAF Scores range from 1-100. DSM-IV at 32. A GAF”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Mr. Fleming’s] association with Mr. Clark is attenuated, at best, and the Court cannot find that theirs is a significant relationship. In fact, Mr. Fleming appears to be nothing more than an intruder and uninvited meddler. Additionally, Mr. Clark has informed the Court through his lawyer that he does not want to be transported for a hearing in this matter. The Court is unable to conclude that Mr. Fleming is truly dedicated to the best interests of Mr. Clark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“standing is not satisfied where ... his access to court is otherwise unimpeded. 31 Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165, 110 S.Ct. 1717. 32 The Coalition does not urge that the detainees suffer a mental or physical disability precluding their representation of their interests before the court, rather it argues that the first prong of the Whitmore-Massie test is satisfied because the detainees”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.