Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 F.3d 51 - Jolly v. Gammon

Jolly v. Gammon’s Empirical Analysis

28 F.3d 51 · 1994

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
April 2017
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Trevino v. Johnson (1999), Bannister v. Delo (1996)

17 federal appellate ·

210199420002010decided

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. § 636

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Harris v. Reed · Sawyer v. Whitley · Delaware v. New York · White v. United States

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

  1. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , a federal court's power to review a state conviction is limited. Habeas review is available only where errors of a constitutional magnitude have occurred. As support for his habeas claim, [petitioner] relies on the Missouri Supreme Court's criticism of the practice of adopting one party's suggested findings of law or fact. However, the court's disapproval of this practice cannot convert [petitioner]'s challenge to a proceeding collateral to his detention into a constitutional challenge of the detention itself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Failure to raise a claim on appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion erects a procedural bar to federal habeas review.”
    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.