Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 NW2D 827 - Gregory v. Solem

Gregory v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2016

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Engle v. Isaac · Henderson v. Morgan · Smith v. Murray

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

  1. “All grounds for relief available to a petitioner under this chapter shall be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground not raised, finally adjudicated or knowingly and understandingly waived in the proceedings resulting in his conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding that the applicant has taken to secure relief from his conviction, or sentence, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds grounds for relief asserted which for reasonable cause were omitted or inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended application.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. Cause for his omission or failure to previously raise the grounds for habeas relief; and 2. Actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A party to an action may not make a voluntary decision concerning a trial tactic and then when they find themselves in an undesirable position as a result of that legal posture, attempt to proceed in a subsequent inconsistent manner. Judicial estoppel bars such gamesmanship.”
    2 later decisions 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.