Gaskins v. McKellar

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 500 U.S. 961, 111 S. Ct. 2277, 114 L. Ed. 2d 728, 91 Daily Journal DAR 6416, 59 U.S.L.W. 3809, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3217

Decision Date: 6/3/1991

Docket Number: No. 90-7469

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961, 111 S. Ct. 2277, 114 L. Ed. 2d 728, 91 Daily Journal DAR 6416, 59 U.S.L.W. 3809, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 3217 (1991)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1991


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 6% most-cited · cited by 33 decisions
33
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

30
2
1
1990s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ala. Crim. App.13
4th Cir.5
Ala.2
3d Cir.1
8th Cir.1
9th Cir.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2022Bellamy v. Graham D. Maryland
  • 2009Johnson v. State Ala. Crim. App.
  • 2000Ellis v. Picklesimer M.D.N.C.
  • 1999United States v. Gray C.A.A.F.
  • 1999Lawhorn v. State Ala. Crim. App.
  • 1999McWhorter v. State Ala. Crim. App.
  • 1998Hyde v. State Ala. Crim. App.
  • 1997Johnson v. State S.C.
  • 1997Price v. State Ala. Crim. App.
  • 1996United States v. Gualberto Garcia, United States of America v. Jorge Morera, United States of America v. Marshall Allen Slater 4th Cir.
Cites 1 case

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Gaskins v. McKellar, Warden, et al.

majority

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further consideration in light of Yates v. Evatt, ante, p. 391.

Opinion of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.

One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage. In Cage, the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt “ ‘must be [a] doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . .’” Id., at 40 (emphasis omitted). Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this reason, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.