Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 F.2d 1164 - Brown v. Vasquez

Brown v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis

952 F.2d 1164 · 1991

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably McFarland v. Scott (1994), Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (1998)

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3401991200020102020decided

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 Bounds v. Smith · McCleskey v. Zant · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Jones v. Cunningham · Johnson v. Avery

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

  1. “dramatically different from any other type of civil action”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Compounding this burden, the petitioner is often illiterate or poorly educated and yet must decipher a complex maze of jurisprudence in order to determine which of his constitutional rights, if any, may have been violated. Such a task is ‘difficult even for a trained lawyer to master,’ and, understandably, is often beyond the abilities of most prisoners. [Citation.]” Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1778 , 118 L.Ed.2d 435 (1992).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Dramatically different from any other civil action ... [and] [a]s a result, [we] are not bound to systemically apply traditional rules governing civil proceedings when to do so would be inconsistent with the overriding purposes of the federal habeas corpus statute.”
    1 later decision 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.