Gautt v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.3d 993 · 2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not a situation ... in which the numerical citation was incorrect but the verbal description of the crime corresponded to the crime of which the defendant was convicted. Nor is this a situation in which citation to one statute necessarily encompassed another lesser-included offense, thus sufficiently putting the defendant on notice of the need to defend against both statutes....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cain v. Chappell“jury instructions or closing arguments — sure signs that the end of a trial is drawing near— could substitute for sufficient notice to a defendant of the charges that have been leveled against him.” Gautt, 489 F.3d at 1010 (emphasis in original). A jury instruction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Lopez
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.