Gilman v. Schwarzenegger’s Empirical Analysis
638 F.3d 1101 · 2010
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · California Department of Corrections v. Morales · Munaf v. Geren · Garner v. Jones · United States v. Hinkson
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits of their ex post facto claim unless (1) Proposition 9, on its face, created a significant risk of increasing the punishment of California life-term inmates, or (2) Plaintiffs can “demonstrate, by evidence drawn from [Proposition 9’s] practical implementation ..., that its retroactive application will result in a longer period of incarceration than under the [prior law].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilman v. Brown · Gilman v. Brown“the controlling inquiry ... was whether retroactive application of the change in California law created “a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilman v. Brown
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.