Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 910 F.2d 384 - Haas v. Abrahamson

Haas v. Abrahamson’s Empirical Analysis

910 F.2d 384 · 1990

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
5
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably United States v. Childress (1995), Del Vecchio v. Illinois Department of Corrections (1994)

51 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

660199020002010decided

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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · Smith v. Phillips · Hicks v. Miranda · Stafford v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “'unless and until they have been overruled or undermined by the decisions of a higher court, or other supervening developments, such as a statutory overruling.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[n]o expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “a specific constitutional right has been violated, a federal court can issue a writ of habeas corpus only when a state evidentiary ruling violates the defendant's right to a fundamentally fair trial”
    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.