Cartwright v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 1203 · 1986
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2004 · most notably Maynard v. Cartwright (1988), State v. Powell (1990)
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If sanity or mental capacity defenses [are] to be defense issues, they must be established by a clear showing by the indigent defendant as genuine, real issues in the ease. In order for a defendant’s mental state to become a substantial threshold issue, the showing must be clear and genuine, one that constitutes a close question which may well be decided one way or the other. It must be one that is fairly debatable or in doubt.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In cases such as this, in which the trial court denied a criminal defendant court-appointed psychiatric assistance prior to the Supreme Court's determination in Ake, but to which Ake's standard applies, the question presented is whether, 'upon review of the entire record, [petitioner] could have made a threshold showing under Ake”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“aggravating circumstance in this case was vague and overbroad in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States 3 At the time that Cartwright was sentenced, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had a statutory obligation to determine”
2 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.