5 Cal. 4th 750 - In Re Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
201 federal appellate · 324 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 813 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Cullen v. Pinholster (2011), Carey Warden v. Saffold (2002)
201 federal appellate · 324 state decisions — followed in 10 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 McCleskey v. Zant · Sawyer v. Whitley · Vasquez v. Hillery · 8 Cal. 3d 410 - In Re Lynch · In Re Dixon
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 813 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[AJbsent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, untimely petitions will be summarily denied. The only exception to this rule are petitions which allege facts which, if proven, would establish that a fundamental miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the proceedings leading to conviction and/or sentence. [F]or purposes of the exception to the procedural bar against ... untimely petitions, a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” will have occurred in any proceeding in which it can be demonstrated: (1) that error of constitutional magnitude led to a trial that was so fundamentally unfair that absent the error no reasonable judge or jury would have convicted the petitioner; (2) that the petitioner is actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which the petitioner was convicted; (3) that the death penalty was imposed by a sentencing authority which had such a grossly misleading profile of the petitioner before it that absent the trial error or omission no reasonable judge or jury would have imposed a sentence of death; (4) that the petitioner was convicted or sentenced under an invalid statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[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.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“By requiring that such challenges be made reasonably promptly, we vindicate society's interest in the finality of its criminal judgments, as well as the public's interest `in the orderly and reasonably prompt implementation of its laws.' [Citation.] Such timeliness rules serve other salutary interests as well. Requiring a prisoner to file his or her challenge promptly helps ensure that possibly vital evidence will not be lost through the passage of time or the fading of memories. In addition, we cannot overestimate the value of the psychological repose that may come for the victim, or the surviving family and friends of the victim, generated by the knowledge the ordeal is finally over.”
1 later decision 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.