Powell v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 9 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Michigan v. Harvey (1990), State v. Fears (1999)
61 federal appellate · 9 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Relationships
Relies on Estelle v. Smith · Satterwhite v. Texas · Buchanan v. Kentucky · Battie v. Estelle
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Language contained in Smith and in our later decision in Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 [ 107 S.Ct. 2906 , 97 L.Ed.2d 336 ] (1987), provides some support for the Fifth Circuit’s discussion of waiver [in Battie v. Estelle, 655 F.2d 692 (1981) ]. In Smith we observed that “[w]hen a defendant asserts the insanity defense and introduces supporting psychiatric testimony, his silence may deprive the State of the only effective means it has of controverting his proof on an issue that he has interjected into the case.” 451 U.S., at 465 , 101 S.Ct., at 1874 . And in Buchanan the Court held that if a defendant requests a psychiatric examination in order to prove a mental-status defense, he waives the right to raise a Fifth Amendment challenge to the prosecution’s use of evidence obtained through that examination to rebut the defense. 483 U.S., at 422-423 , 107 S.Ct., at 2917-18 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While it may be unfair to the State to permit a defendant to use psychiatric testimony without allowing the State a means to rebut that testimony, it certainly is not unfair to require the State to provide counsel with notice before examining the defendant concerning future dangerousness.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“suggests that a defendant opens the door to the admission of psychiatric evidence on future dangerousness by raising an insanity defense at the guilt stage of the trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.