Gonzalez v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
629 federal appellate · 142 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,448 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2026 · most notably United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (2010), Holland v. Florida (2010)
629 federal appellate · 142 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
reviewedGonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Haines v. Kerner · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Ackermann v. United States · Klapprott v. United States
Cited together with Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Strickland v. Washington · Ackermann v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson
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 2,448 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence by which due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“). Despite that surface attractiveness, however, I agree with the majority that Gilkers's motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition. While recognizing that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Rule 60(b) motion [that] does either ... should be treated as a second-or-successive habeas petition and subjected to AEDPA's limitation on such petitions.”
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.