Harris v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 1497 · 1990
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 15 Cal. 4th 795 - People v. Samayoa (1997), Clisby v. Jones (1992)
131 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Gideon v. Wainwright · Younger v. Harris
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A fundamental miscarriage of justice occurs in those 'extraordinary instances when a constitutional violation probably has caused the conviction of one innocent of the crime.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“such as where 'a constitutional violation probably caused the conviction of one innocent of the crime.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e would be reluctant to open up this type of Ake claim to a battle of experts in a "competence" review ...a never ending process.... A conclusion to the contrary would require this Court and other federal courts to engage in a form of "psychiatric medical malpractice" review as part-and-parcel of its collateral review of state court judgments. The ultimate result would be a never-ending battle of psychiatrists appointed as experts for the sole purpose of discrediting a prior psychiatrist's diagnosis. We do not believe this was the intent of the Court in Ake when it held that indigent defendants who raise a defense of insanity are entitled to psychiatric assistance in the preparation of their defense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.