Case Citator › Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden

Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
231 F.3d 265
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
2012
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated in part. All 33 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court in Parker v. Matthews rejected Gall v. Parker's conclusion that Kentucky's rule about producing evidence of extreme emotional disturbance violated Mullaney v. Wilbur. That treatment is listed below. Other courts continued to apply Gall's separate rulings on juror impartiality and prosecutorial misconduct. Bowling v. Parker distinguished Gall after Kentucky changed its law; later citations describing Bowling as overruling Gall do not establish an overruling by Bowling.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Gall's conclusion that Kentucky's rule on producing evidence of extreme emotional disturbance violated due process under Mullaney.

    Parker v. Matthews · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Relying on its own opinion in Gall’s federal habeas proceeding, Gall v. Parker, 231 F. 3d 265 (CA6 2000) (Gall II), the Sixth Circuit suggested that the quoted statement “require[d] a defendant to bear the heavy burden of disproving an element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” 651 F. 3d, at 504, n. 5, in violation of this Court’s decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975). That is not so.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace