Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 763 F.2d 821 - Gilbert v. Parke

Gilbert v. Parke’s Empirical Analysis

763 F.2d 821 · 1985

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
December 2016
most recently cited

40 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably United States v. Howard (2000), Terrovona v. Kincheloe (1990)

40 federal appellate ·

2901985199020002010decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Payton v. New York · Wainwright v. Sykes · Doyle v. Ohio

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

  1. “For such an opportunity to have existed, the state must have provided, in the abstract, a mechanism by which to raise the claim and the presentation of the claim in this case must not have been frustrated by a failure of that mechanism.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Id. at 494 (footnotes omitted). Here there can be no dispute that appellant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] state court may uphold a defendant's conviction both on the merits and on procedural grounds. In such circumstances, Hockenbury [v. Sowders, 620 F.2d 111 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 933, 101 S.Ct. 1395, 67 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981) ] teaches that the procedural ground is a substantial basis of the state court's decision and that review of the merits on habeas is barred.”
    1 later decision 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.