Glock v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.3d 1014 · 1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2010
1 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutional error in failing to give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Scott v. Singletary“Cruz is the law of the case as it comes to us; thus, there can be no Teague bar.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Glock v. Singletary“especially wicked, evil, atrocious, or cruel”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Glock v. Singletary
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.