Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 650 F.2d 447 - Washington v. Harris

Washington v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

650 F.2d 447 · 1981

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003 · most notably Connecticut v. Johnson (1983), Klein v. Harris (1981)

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

730198119902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Sandstrom v. Montana · Picard v. Connor · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · People v. Patterson

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

  1. “no warrant ... for guarding state procedural rules more vigilantly than the State itself does,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “On the question of intent, you may infer that a person intends that which is the natural and necessary and probable consequences of the acts performed by him and unless the act was done under circumstances to preclude the existence of such intent, you have a right to find from the results produced an intention to effect it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “I have already instructed you on the subject of intent. You will recall, intent is a mental operation and can be proved only by facts and circumstances surrounding the acts. Our law says a person intends that which is the necessary and natural consequence of any act performed by him.”
    1 later decision 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.