Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 413 F.2d 383 - Aaron Proctor v. David W. Harris

Aaron Proctor v. David W. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

413 F.2d 383 · 1969

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
8
states following
July 1993
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 1993 · most notably Johnson v. State (1982), Justus v. Commonwealth (1980)

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

2201969197019801990decided

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 Specht v. Patterson · United States Smith v. Baldi · Dorsey v. Gill · Bolton v. Harris · Washington v. United States

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘From Appellant’s posture, no psychiatrist can really “assist” him adequately unless he agrees with Appellant’s position. Stripped of its verbiage Appellant’s position is that he is entitled to a psychiatrist sufficiently sympathetic so that he will assist counsel in preparing his case favorably to his claims, and, accordingly, in structuring cross-examination of the hospital doctors so as to neutralize their testimony. Neither sound administration, basic fairness, nor constitutional standards require such a course.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]ur concern for expert opinion to serve as a check on other expert opinion depicts a striving to assist the Court in resolving complex and elusive issues presented in proceedings of this kind, but our holdings do not mean the process is to go on ad infinitum.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we see no basis for assuming that one court-designated expert needs the surveillances of another psychiatrist who is thrust into what would be essentially a partisan role.”
    1 later decision 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.