Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 F.3d 965 - Gunn v. Ignacio

Gunn v. Ignacio’s Empirical Analysis

263 F.3d 965 · 2001

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
July 2024
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2024

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80200120102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Santobello v. New York · Tuan Van Tran v. Gary Lindsey Salinas Valley State Prisons · United States v. Arnett · United States v. Fagan

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

  1. “It can be difficult to classify an analysis as an "unreasonable application” of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or alternatively as an "unreasonable determination of the facts” bearing out that application. But because we use the same deferential "clearly erroneous” standard for both determinations, "if we are wrong” in this classification, sometimes "it makes no difference.” Gunn, 263 F.3d at 969 (quoting Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.2000)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clearly erroneous” standard for both determinations,”
    1 later decision 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.