Gregory Gilchrist v. John R. O'keefe, Superintendent’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.3d 87 · 2001
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Cotto v. Herbert (2003), Eze v. Senkowski (2003)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Linkletter v. Walker
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A state court decision falls within the unreasonable application clause if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case. The Supreme Court has thus far offered little guidance as to the meaning of the term unreasonable application, tautologically instructing federal habeas courts to ask whether the state court’s application was objectively unreasonable. The Supreme Court did caution, however, that an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect or erroneous application of federal law. Thus, a federal habeas court is not empowered to grant the writ when, in its independent judgment, it determines that the state court incorrectly applied the relevant federal law. The state court’s application must reflect some additional increment of incorrectness such that it may be said to be unreasonable. However, the increment need not be great; otherwise, habeas relief would be limited to state court decisions so far off the mark as to suggest judicial incompetence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lynn v. Bliden · Eze v. Senkowski“And an [objectively] `unreasonable application' of `clearly established' Supreme Court precedent occurs when a state court `identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kennaugh v. Miller · Rosa v. McCray“even absent a warning, a defendant may be found to have forfeited certain trial-related constitutional rights based on certain types of misconduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Aceto · Norde v. Keane
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.