Gipson v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.3d 1193 · 2004
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Chambers v. Mississippi · Benton v. Maryland
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the “contrary to” clause, we grant relief only if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.”
64 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no indication suggesting that the state court did not reach the merits of a claim, we have held that a state court reaches a decision `on the merits' even when it fails either to mention the federal basis for the claim or cite any state or federal law in support of its conclusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Webber v. Scott · Harris v. Poppell“if the state court did not decide a claim on the merits, and the claim is not otherwise procedurally barred, we address the issue de novo and [ § 2254(d) 's] deference requirement does not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eaton v. Pacheco
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.