Gilmore v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis
799 F.2d 51 · 1986
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2016
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Payton v. New York · Stone v. Powell · Smith v. Phillips · Kimmelman v. Morrison
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A petitioner may not cloak his ... Fourth Amendment claim in due process clothing to circumvent Stone v. Powell [, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)].... Due process is a flexible concept, but it cannot be stretched to protect a defendant from every asserted error in a state court’s reasoning.. .Accepting [the petitioner’s] argument would allow habeas petitioners to transmogrify every unsuccessful Fourth Amendment claim into a due process violation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“failure to give at least colorable application of the correct Fourth Amendment constitutional standard”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“opportunity for full and fair litigation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turentine v. Miller
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.