Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 780 F.2d 935 - Gaddy v. Linahan

Gaddy v. Linahan’s Empirical Analysis

780 F.2d 935 · 1986

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth (1988), Miller v. Champion (1998)

15 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

19019861990200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Bonner v. City of Prichard · McCarthy v. United States · Engle v. Isaac

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

  1. “[A] plea of guilty represents, in essence, an admission as to each and every element of the offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[A] petitioner’s failure to pursue an appeal of a state habeas court's denial of his writ does not defeat the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court to rule on his petition. The procedural default doctrine ... is not jurisdictional but rather is based on considerations of comity and the orderly administration of criminal justice. See Fay v. Noia, [ 372 U.S. 391 , 430-38, 83 S.Ct. 822 , 844-49, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[C]onclusory responses by a defendant and his counsel to a court's inquiry into whether the defendant `understands' the charge is not sufficient to establish that the defendant actually has knowledge and understanding, particularly when he possesses minimal intelligence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.