Haring v. Prosise’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
397 federal appellate · 69 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,109 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Daniels v. Williams (1986), Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education (1984)
397 federal appellate · 69 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedProsise v. Haring (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · Monroe v. Pape · Brady v. United States · Allen v. McCurry
Cited together with Allen v. McCurry · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Tollett v. Henderson · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
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 1,109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the same parties or their privies from relitigat-ing in a second suit issues that were actually litigated and determined in a former suit. This doctrine does not apply to issues that were not necessary for the decision in the former case or when the party against whom the preclusion is sought did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit. One defending on the basis of res judicata or collateral estoppel must demonstrate that (1) the judgment in the prior case was final and concluded the rights of the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) both cases involved the same parties, the same cause of action, or identical issues.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certification of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither Tollett ... nor our earlier cases on which it relied ... stand for the proposition that counseled guilty pleas inevitably “waive” all antecedent constitutional violations.... [I]n Tollett we emphasized that waiver was not the basic ingredient of this line of cases. The point of these cases is that a counseled plea of guilty is an admission of factual guilt so reliable that, where voluntary and intelligent, it quite validly removes the issue of factual guilt from the case. In most cases, factual guilt is a sufficient basis for the State’s imposition of punishment. A guilty plea, therefore, simply renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established.”
7 later decisions 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.