Miles v. Stainer’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.3d 1109 · 1997
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Fernandez (2004), United States v. Mitchell (2007)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Godinez v. Moran
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state does not discuss whether the new’ standard of review for habeas petitions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) should apply to this case. We therefore deem the issue waived.”). 4 . After Granberry was decided, Congress explicitly adopted the same rule in AEDPA.'See 22 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(3) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Winfield v. Dorethy“Due process requires a trial court to hold a competency hearing sua sponte whenever the evidence before it raises a reasonable doubt whether a defendant is mentally competent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Henry“exists a 'strong presumption' that counsel's conduct was reasonable because so many challenged actions can be explained as strategic choices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.