green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
37.1 score
“the question . . . gilmore is 'unable' as a matter of law to waive the right to state appellate review . . . simply is not before us.”
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Comer v. Schriro
(9×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the question . . . gilmore is 'unable' as a matter of law to waive the right to state appellate review . . . simply is not before us.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dylann Roof
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1013 (1976) (terminating a stay of execution by permitting the defendant to waive his right to appeal); id. at 1015 n.4 (Burger, C.J., concurring) (noting that the defendant “did not care to languish in prison for another day” (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. id. at 1018 (White, J., dissenting) (favoring a 25 According to that dissent (and to Roof), the right to self-representation does not extend to the right to choose death for oneself: Davis intends to incur the death penalty by presenting no adversary trial defense whatsoever.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re the Guardianship of Cobb
But Christine and Daniel cite to a concurring opinion in Gilmore discussing “next friend” standing, about which the concurring opinion commented that “next friend” standing was inappropriate absent a showing that the defendant was incompetent to waive his right to appeal his death sentence. 429 U.S. at 1014 (Burger, J., concurring).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Charles Comer v. Dora B. Schriro, Director, of Arizona Department of Corrections
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
Gilmore, 429 U.S. at 1015, n. 4 , 97 S.Ct. 436 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Charles Comer v. Dora B. Schriro, Director, of Arizona Department of Corrections
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
Gilmore, 429 U.S. at 1015, n. 4 , 97 S.Ct. 436 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Comer v. Schriro
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
In Gilmore, 429 U.S. at 1017 (J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Theodore John Kaczynski
See, e.g., Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 171-72 (1990) (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting) (careful review of capital cases "is necessary not only to safeguard a defendant's right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment but also to protect society's fundamental interest in ensuring that the coercive power of the State is not employed in a manner that shocks the community's con- science or undermines the integrity of our criminal justice system"); Gil- more v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1019 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("I believe that the Eighth Amendment not only protec…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Don Jay Miller, by and Through Nancy Follin Jones v. Terry Stewart
He also believes that he has several years of appeals before the imposition of the death penalty would actually take place." FISHER, Circuit Judge, Concurring: 12 Under Whitmore, the "prerequisite for 'next friend' standing is not satisfied where an evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed, and his access to court is otherwise unimpeded." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165 (1990) (citing Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas
(12×)
also: Cited "see"
It is because of the crying need to vindicate that right, that basic value, that Simmons should be held unable `to waive resolution in state courts' of the correctness of his death sentence." Franz v. Lockhart, 700 F. Supp. 1005, 1024 (ED Ark. 1988) (quoting Gilmore v. Utah, supra, at 1018 (WHITE, J., dissenting)) (citation omitted), appeal pending, No. 89-1485EA (CA8).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Franz v. Lockhart
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Ten days later, after examining the State filings, the Court entered an Order terminating the stay: After carefully examining the materials submitted by the State of Utah, the Court is convinced that Gary Mark Gilmore made a knowing and intelligent waiver of any and all federal rights he might have asserted after the Utah trial court’s sentence was imposed, and, specifically, that the State’s determinations of his competence knowingly and intelligently to waive any and all such rights were firmly grounded. *1012 Chief Justice Burger filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Powell, in …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Franz Ex Rel. Simmons v. State
(3×)
Because of Gary Gilmore’s purported waiver of his right to challenge the statute, none of these questions was resolved in the Utah courts.” Gilmore, 429 U.S. at 1017-18 (White, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Streetman v. Lynaugh
(2×)
See, Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306 , 100 S.Ct. 3 , 61 L.Ed.2d 885 (1979); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. at 1012, 97 S.Ct. at 436 ; Lovelace v. Lynaugh, 809 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 966 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1987); Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.1978).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Armontrout
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented, arguing that "the consent of a convicted defendant in a criminal case does not privilege a State to impose a punishment otherwise forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." 429 U.S. at 1018, 97 S.Ct. at 439. 10 However, that five justices concluded that Gilmore's mother lacked standing makes clear at the very least that, even if there is some such bar to waiving review, it does not serve to confer standing upon a next friend in the absence of some other basis for standing.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith ex rel. Missouri Public Defender Commission v. Armontrout
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented, arguing that “the consent of a convicted defendant in a criminal case does not privilege a State to impose a punishment otherwise forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” 429 U.S. at 1018, 97 S.Ct. at 439. 10 However, that five justices concluded that Gilmore’s mother lacked standing makes clear at the very least that, even if there is some such bar to waiving review, it does not serve to confer standing upon a next friend in the absence of some other basis for standing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith by and Through Smith v. Armontrout
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. at 1016, 97 S.Ct. at 439 (Burger, C.J., concurring); see U.S. Const, art.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lehman Ex Rel. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency
(2×)
Cf. Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U. S. 1012, 1013-1014 (1976) (Burger, C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hays ex rel. Hays v. Murphy
The Chief Justice reasoned that only when a “case or controversy” exists, as envisioned under Article III of the Constitution, does the court have jurisdiction, and the power in aid of its jurisdiction, to intercede in any manner, 429 U.S. at 1016, 97 S.Ct. at 439.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hammett v. Texas
(16×)
also: Cited "see"
See Lenhard v. Wolff, 444 U. S. at 810 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U. S. 1012, 1019 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirk B. Lenhard v. Charles Wolff
(5×)
In Gilmore v. Utah , supra , at 1018, 97 S.Ct. 436 , Mr. Justice WHITE, in a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice BRENNAN and I joined, asserted "that the consent of a convicted defendant in a criminal case does not privilege a State to impose a punishment otherwise forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." In my own dissenting opinion, I expressed the view that "the Eighth Amendment not only protects the right of individuals not to be victims of cruel and unusual punishment, but that it also expresses a fundamental interest of society in ensuring that state authority is not used to administer ba…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schuppin v. Unification Church
The only possible exception of this conclusion would be if the record suggested, despite the representations of Gary Mark Gilmore’s attorneys, that he was incompetent to waive his right to appeal under state law and was at the present time incompetent to assert rights or to challenge Bessie Gilmore’s standing to assert rights in his behalf as “next friend.” 429 U.S. at 1014, 97 S.Ct. at 438 (Burger, C.
cited
Cited "see"
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1017 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fahy v. Horn
(2×)
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comer v. Stewart
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976); Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165 , 110 S.Ct. 1717 , 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990)(“next friend” standing is not available if “an evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed, and his access to court is otherwise unimpeded”); see also Brewer v. Lewis, 989 F.2d 1021, 1027 (9th Cir.1993); Lenhard v. Wolff, 603 F.2d 91, 93 (9th Cir.1979).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
(4×)
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). {85} The Legislature, pursuant to Section 31-20A-4(A), requires this Court to review the judgment of conviction and sentence of death automatically.
discussed
Cited "see"
Red Dog v. State
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976); Hammett v. Texas, 448 U.S. 725 , 100 S.Ct. 2905 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1086 (1980) (per curiam), Lenhard v. Wolff, 444 U.S. 807 , 100 S.Ct. 29 , 62 L.Ed.2d 20 (1979); Mitchell v. Lawrence ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pennell v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brewer
(2×)
See [Bessie] Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1014-17 , 97 S.Ct. 436, 438-39 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (court declines jurisdiction over application for stay of execution filed by Gary Gilmore's mother over his objection).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
See, for example, Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (convicted murderer's mother could not seek stay of execution where murderer himself knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amato v. Wilentz
See, for example, Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (convicted murderer’s mother could not seek stay of execution where murderer himself knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Ambassador Ins. Co., Inc.
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1016-17 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hamblen v. Dugger
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (per curiam); Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 291-92 , 73 S.Ct. 1152, 1161-62 , 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (opinion of Jackson, J., joined by five Members of the Court), adopted by the Court, id. at 288, 73 S.Ct. at 1160 ; Lovelace v. Lynaugh, 809 F.2d 1136, 1137-38 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1071 , 107 S.Ct. 966 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1987); Smith, 812 F.2d at 1059; Lenhard, 603 F.2d at 93 ; Evans, 467 F.Supp. at 1111 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Whitmore v. State
(2×)
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976), where the Supreme Court reversed the record bearing on Gilmore's competency and decided his mother did not have standing to speak for him.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Keith
See, Gilmore v. Utah (1976), 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 ; and Judy v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 145 , 416 N.E.2d 95 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Keith
See, Gilmore v. Utah (1976), 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 ; and Judy v. State (Ind. 1981), 416 N.E.2d 95 .
cited
Cited "see"
DeShields v. State
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 1017, 97 S.Ct. 436, 439 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632, 635 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bailey
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976); Rumbaugh v. Estelle, N.D.Tex., 558 F.Supp. 651 (1983), aff'd sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
SMITH BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Armontrout
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436, 439 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (Burger, C.J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith by and Through Smith v. Armontrout
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 1016, 97 S.Ct. 436, 439 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (Burger, C.J. concurring). 1 Many courts have faithfully followed these procedures in handling cases such as the present one.
cited
Cited "see"
Andrews v. Shulsen
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). 17 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Felde
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). [18] Bishop controls this issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
(2×)
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring) (order dismissing stay of execution); Brilmayer, The Jurisprudence of Article III: Perspectives on the "Case or Controversy" Requirement, 93 Harv.
cited
Cited "see"
Faulder v. State
See generally Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Potts v. Austin
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Capetola v. Orlando
See Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 , 97 S.Ct. 436 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bowling v. Commonwealth
(4×)
CR 52.01. [1] Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 , 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2252 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). [2] Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321 , 122 S.Ct. at 2252 (citing Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 405 , 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2599 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)) (emphasis added); see also Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1019 , 97 S.Ct. 436, 440 , 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("I believe that the Eighth Amendment not only protects the right of individuals not to be victims of cruel and unusual punishment, but that it also expresses a fundamental interest of society in ensuring that state author…
McDonald
v.
Tennessee
v.
Tennessee
Nos. A-403 and A-437 (76-5690).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 13, 1976.
429 U.S. 1012
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Tenn. Applications for stay and other relief, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.