Gage v. Chappell’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.3d 1159 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Coleman v. Thompson · Schlup v. Delo · McCleskey v. Zant · Herrera v. Collins
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.
“(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“distinguished between petitions containing claims, the factual predicate of which came into being after the first habeas petition-such as the mental incompetency claim in Panetti -and those containing claims that were ripe at the conclusion of a first habeas proceeding but were not discovered until afterward.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he factual predicate for Gage's Brady claim developed, at the latest, when the state trial judge commented on the contents of [the victim's] medical records .... This is not a case where the basis for the would-be petitioner's second petition did not exist or was unripe when the first petition was filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Muniz
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.