Gee v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis
979 F.2d 176 · 1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Michigan v. Long · McCleskey v. Zant · Barefoot v. Estelle · Ylst v. Nunnemaker
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus ... need not be entertained ... unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for the writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gee v. Shillinger“that he was denied the right to ... effective appellate counsel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gee v. Shillinger
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.