Case Citator › Gonzalez v. Crosby

Gonzalez v. Crosby

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
545 U.S. 524
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
87 of 87
Citing cases (total)
3,108
Treatment dates
2020
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Gonzalez v. Crosby has one confirmed limit among all 87 flagged citations read. Banister v. Davis declined to extend Gonzalez's treatment of Rule 60(b) motions to timely Rule 59(e) motions, which remain part of the first habeas proceeding.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. The other opinions applied Gonzalez, described its effect on older circuit rules, or addressed other authorities. Kemp v. United States expressly left Gonzalez undisturbed.

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.

3,108 later cases cite Gonzalez v. Crosby; 87 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 Gonzalez v. Crosby?

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

Limited

  • The Court declined to extend Gonzalez's treatment of Rule 60(b) motions to timely Rule 59(e) motions, which remain part of the first habeas proceeding rather than second or successive applications.

    Banister v. Davis · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    For those reasons, Gonzalez does not govern here. ... unlike a Rule 60(b) motion, does not count as a second or successive habeas application.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gonzalez v. Crosby 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