Gibson v. Turpin’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Butts v. State (2001), Slakman v. Continental Casualty Co. (2003)
5 federal appellate · 54 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 18 U.S.C. § 2254 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Coleman v. Thompson · Gregg v. Georgia · Gault
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder the United States Constitution, the [S]tate is required to provide counsel to indigent defendants for their trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (83 SC 792, 9 LE2d 799) (1963), and for their first appeal as a matter of right, Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (83 SC 814, 9 LE2d 811) (1963), but no further. The Constitution does not even require states with multi-tiered appellate systems to appoint appellate counsel through the exhaustion of an indigent defendant’s discretionary direct appeals. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600 (94 SC 2437, 41 LE2d 341) (1974).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[H]abeas corpus is not a criminal proceeding, but is considered to be civil in nature. It is a collateral attack [ 4 ] that is separate and distinct from direct review, and occurs only after a prisoner has failed to obtain relief by direct appeal. It is not an extension of direct appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Byrd v. Shaffer · Rawles v. Holt“Death penalty cases do require closer examination and the additional safeguards provided by law. The citizens of this state should be, must be, appalled at the prospect of executing ... a murderer undeserving of the ultimate punishment.... "Death is different" is a crucial reminder of the gravity of a sentence where the state seeks to punish a defendant by taking his life, and of the need for procedural safeguards in the determination and carrying out of such a sentence, but it should not be used to construct ... rights that do not exist, or to usurp the legislature's role in determining the structure of our criminal justice system.... (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Fair v. State
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.