Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 F.3d 1203 - Revilla v. Gibson

Revilla v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

283 F.3d 1203 · 2002

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), State v. Gleason (2004)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

330200220102020decided

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. § 2253 (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 · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Murray v. Carrier · Caldwell v. Mississippi

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

  1. “[Assuming that the Enmund determination is not made at trial], [t]he federal court could itself make the factual determination whether the defendant killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, and either grant or deny the writ depending on the outcome of that inquiry. Alternatively, the federal court could take steps to require the State's own judicial system to make the factual findings in the first instance.... We believe ... that the second course of action is the sounder one ... [and that the state court should have the initial] opportunity to carry out in the first instance the factual inquiry called for by Enmund. "); id. at 386 ("At what precise point in its criminal process a State [or federal court on review for habeas corpus] chooses to make the Enmund [or Tison ] determination is of little concern from the standpoint of the Constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “was so grossly prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “aid[] and abet[] a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who do[] not [themselves] kill.”
    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.