Gonzalez v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis
565 U.S. 134 · 2012
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Welch v. United States (2016), Gonzalez v. Thaler (2012)
46 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Foman v. Davis · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute's scope shall count as jurisdictional.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“endeavored ... to bring some discipline to the use of the term 'jurisdictional.' " Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134 , 141, 132 S.Ct. 641 , 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). It "pressed a stricter distinction between truly jurisdictional rules, which govern a court's adjudicatory authority, and nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which do not.”
3 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.