18 Cal. 4th 770 - In Re Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 383 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Harrington v. Richter (2011), Harrington v. Richter (2011)
80 federal appellate · 94 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Jones v. Barnes · Harris v. Reed · McCleskey v. Zant
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 383 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Substantial delay is measured from the time the petitioner or his or her counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim. A petitioner must allege, with specificity , facts showing when information offered in support of the claim was obtained, and that the information neither was known, nor reasonably should have been known, at any earlier time.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Watson · In re Miles“[W]henever we apply the first three Clark exceptions, we do so exclusively by reference to state law. When we apply the fourth Clark exception, we apply federal law in resolving any federal constitutional claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e shall assume, for the purpose of addressing the procedural issue, that a federal constitutional error is stated, and we shall find the exception inapposite if, based upon our application of state law, it cannot be said that the asserted error ‘led to a trial that was so fundamentally unfair that absent the error no reasonable judge or jury would have convicted the petitioner.’”
2 later decisions 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.