Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 568 F.3d 862 - Gardner v. Galetka

Gardner v. Galetka’s Empirical Analysis

568 F.3d 862 · 2009

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Prost v. Anderson (2011), Byrd v. Workman (2011)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

480200920102020decided

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

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Neder v. United States

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is one thing to allow parties to forfeit claims, defenses, or lines of argument; it would be quite another to allow parties to stipulate or bind us to application of an incorrect legal standard, contrary to the congressional purpose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Other courts of appeal ... all have concluded that the standard of review under AEDPA cannot be waived by the parties .”
    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.