Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 U.S. 333 - Gilmore v. Taylor

Gilmore v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

603
cited by 603 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

250 federal appellate · 37 district · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 603 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably Schriro Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Summerlin (2004), Caspari Superintendent Missouri Eastern Correctional Center et al Bohlen (1994)

250 federal appellate · 37 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 16 states

25901993200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Buckley v. Valeo · 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 603 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'watershed rules of criminal procedure' implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal procedure.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]utside of the capital context, we have never said that the possibility of a jury misapplying state law gives rise to a federal constitutional error. To the contrary, we have held that instructions that contain errors of state law may not form the basis for federal habeas relief.”
    5 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.